HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-06-13 14171
MINUTES OF THE 705th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 13, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 705th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engehretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg
C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also
present.
Mr. Engebretson: Welcome to the 705th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings of the
Livonia City Planning Commission. Because I have a case of
laryngitis, I am going to ask Mr. McCann to make the opening
statement, and then we will begin with the public hearing.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
`,"' who, in turn, will hold its awn public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner
has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the
petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by
the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or
not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-1-7
by John Mahn for Dominic Lib rdi requesting to rezone property located
south of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from P to C-2 and RUF.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
surfacing of the proposed parking areas along with a related
storm sewer should be required. Further, they note that Plymouth
Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent in accordance
with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
14172
We have also received a letter from C. David LeBlanc of 34018
Parkdale, which reads as follows:
I am writing you regarding Petition 95-4-1-7 by John Mahn for
Dominic Liburdi , requesting the rezoning of property located
south of Plymouth between Stark and Farmington Roads. I would
have preferred to express my views in person, but my schedule
would not let me attend the hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 1995.
I am a homeowner in the Wellington Woods Subdivision, on lot #25,
and within full view of the petitioner's property. Having lived
here for fourteen years, I am quite familiar with the background
of the property in the petition. The previous property owner,
Mr. Ifrate, as you may recall, started the development that is
currently in place on the property. Furthermore, you may recall
that Mr. Ifrate had plans approved by the Commission to retain
the wooded area behind his development in order to shield our
residential development from his commercial development, and thus
allowed the Commission to grant him waivers twice, from having to
put up a wall. His development proved to be financially unsound,
which has led to a now vacant building and, up until a month ago,
a development that looked like a junk yard--filled with
construction scrap and junk vehicles.
The Planning Commission and City Council approved Mr. Ifrate's
plan originally, but were then unable to force Mr. Ifrate to live
up to his commitments for the property. Now that he is no longer
the property owner, we are again looking at aspirations of a new
\..- property owner, Mr. Liburdi. While Mr. Liburdi has requested to
rezone part of the area from Parking to C2 commercial and from
Parking to RUF, I am deeply concerned about the loss of our
existing greenbelt separating his commercial property from our
residential neighborhood. As you are probably aware, this
existing greenbelt is continuous from behind Norwest Electronics
on the west, all the way to the automotive parts store on the
east. The existing greenbelt that would be affected by this
development plan is approximately 90 feet deep, from the
residential property line to the berm that Mr. Ifrate had built.
I have included photos of the existing greenbelt to review, shot
from my neighbor's backyard (lots 23 & 24) and from Plymouth
Road. The new developer, Mr. Liburdi, is proposing to bulldoze
the entire 90 feet of the existing greenbelt in place and replace
it with a 30 foot wide strip of pseudo greenbelt of raked earth
and evergreen trccs. At the same time, he is proposing to put a
boat storage facility in the back of this commercial property,
within easy eyesight of all the homes along it. To give you an
idea of what boat storage looks like, you will find attached a
picture reflecting what most boat storage and dealers use for
racking units for sale or boat storage for customers. These
racks are approximately 30 feet in height or the height of a
standard two-story home, and as you can see, would be extremely
visible and tower over the pseudo greenbelt that is being
14173
proposed. You will also find an additional picture of boat
storage behind Pro-Motion Marine, which is located east on
Plymouth Road next to the Salvation Army store. I believe this
�.• is the intended tenant for Mr. Liturdi's development As you can
see, the yard is quite jammed with boats and miscellaneous
equipment and is very unsightly.
With the organization of the Plymouth Road Downtown Development
Authority, I do not believe that this is the type of development
that the Planning Commission or the City of Livonia was looking
to attract to improve its viability as an attractive and thriving
commercial district. Furthermore, Mr. Lib rdi is proposing to
add 16,200 square feet of additional commercial space to his
development, in addition to the existing 12,180 square feet.
While the original site development plan called for Mr. Ifrate to
build one additional building, the new developers, I believe,
have now proposed too intensive of a development for this small
property, thus driving their need for additional parking spaces,
to meet city zoning requirements. In addition, I would like to
point out that these additional parking spaces, as identified,
are located in a chained and gated area, thus precluding any
potential customers from utilizing those parking areas. I would
say that the actual intent is to utilize that entire fenced in
area for boat storage and other equipment storage. Once again,
the Planning Commission will be told one thing, while a developer
does another, as with Mr. Ifrate. Once he has his approvals, the
city will lose all leverage over what he does on his property.
With the vast amount of vacant commercial and light industrial
space within the Plymouth Road and I-96 corridor, Livonia has no
need for additional commercial space, as being proposed in this
development. Since there are no current tenants and in view of
the excess capacity in commercial space available, we have no way
of knowing when this proposed space will be filled. The
developer could take a number of years to reach full occupancy,
if at all; while, in the meantime, the development goes unused
and, more than likely, unkept. The 30 foot wide greenbelt with
its berm would more than likely become a "weedbelt."
These concerns, which are legitimate and sincere, do not preclude
me from agreeing that the property should be developed and
completed. I would suggest that the residents, the developer,
and the Planning Commission work together to make this project
feasible. In that regard, the following are my suggestions on
how to achieve a workable plan:
a) The Planning Commission grant a waiver reducing the number of
parking spaces required for Mr. Libordi 's development, thus
leaving the 90 feet of existing greenbelt in place.
b) Eliminate one or both of the proposed additional buildings
for the site, on the west side; thus again reducing the need
for additional parking behind the south building and, again,
leaving the 90 feet of greenbelt in place.
14174
c) Eliminate the southern most building; thus allowing the fence
line to be run directly from the corner of the existing
building west to the Thomas Family Dining Restaurant property
line on the west. This would ensure Mr. Liburdi that he has
the maximum amount of boat storage available without
destroying the existing greenbelt of 90 feet. In order for
the storage yard not to be viewed from Plymouth Road, a
privacy fence could be erected.
While these changes would leave in place the 90 feet of existing
greenbelt and allow for boat storage, we would still be able to
view the boat storage during the winter months, but this is less
of an aesthetic problem since we do not spend time in our back
yards during the winter. The loss of this existing greenbelt for
a 30 foot wide pseudo greenbelt would be permanent and
year-round; thus negatively impacting our property values and
destroying the continuous greenbelt that runs behind all the
yards bordering the Plymouth Road commercial district.
Finally, I would propose that if the Planning Commission would
agree to leave the 90 feet of existing greenbelt in place, I
would recommend that it be rezoned from Parking to RUF. This
would preclude any future property owner from threatening the
continuous greenbelt.
I appreciate the notice and the opportunity to express my views
on this matter to the City Planning Commission and I hope you
take our concerns into consideration when you approve a site plan
�.. for this development.
That is the end of our correspondence.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
John Mahn, Southeastern Michigan Management Company: I am petitioning on behalf of
Mr. Liburdi. If you have any questions, I will be happy to
answer them.
Mr. LaPine: I would like you to explain what you propose to do here if you
get this rezoning.
Mr. Mahn: I believe the zoning for C-2 is necessary to have parking and
paving where the P is so we can have an additional two buildings
on the westerly part as the site plan indicates and one building
at the black boundary line to the south and keeping a 30 foot
berm below the stem of the P there.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding from our notes that you intend to put boat
storage back there in the portion that is now P?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: How large are the new buildings going to be?
14175
Mr. Mahn: Three cells at 5,000 sq. ft. each.
Mr. raPine: 15,000 square feet?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: The boat storage back there, are these new boats or boats people
are storing back there?
Mr. Mahn: They are boats to be repaired as well as there will be storage.
This tenant has his business right now in Livonia, but due to the
fact of it not conforming with the ordinance regarding storage he
has to move, so we are trying to to accommodate a business that
is in Livonia right now.
Mr. Morrow: I am not familiar with what they mean by boat storage. Is that
parking boats on ground level or are we talking about multiple
heights as far as having boats stacked in the air?
Mr. Mahn: It is at ground level.
Mr. Morrow: So this would be new boats for sale, ground level.
Mr. Mahn: No new boats for storage ground level.
Mr. Morrow: They are not for sale?
Mr. Mahn: No sir.
`` Mr. Morrow: Whose are they?
Mr. Mahn: Owners that would store there.
Mr. Morrow: That is what I was getting at. In other words, this is going to
be storage for people that want to have a place for the winter
for their boats, not new boat storage?
Mr. Mahn: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Have you estimated the amount of woods that are back there? The
depth of the woods, right now as they exist? We know you are
talking about 30 feet. It is quite wooded back there but I don't
know haw many feet. We tried to walk it but it is very dense.
Mr. Mahn: We have been in the process of cleaning up that whole site. It
was an eyesore until right now. I think we have it to a point
that we are ready to do something to beautify Plymouth Road. TO
answer your question, the trees right now are around 30 feet.
Mr. Morrow: So you are saying there is 30 feet between the owner's property
line and the end of the tree line?
14176
Mr. Mahn: I believe that is true.
Mr. Morrow: Maybe the owners will have a different number but for now we will
go with 30 feet. Would it be your intent to raze all the trees
Nfty and put in a berm?
Mr. Mahn: No, our intent is to keep the trees there.
Mr. Morrow: Would they be augmented in any way, like with evergreens?
Mr. Mahn: When we are through with that setting, it would be something that
would beautify Plymouth Road as well as protect the screening for
the residents behind there. Whatever we have done in the City of
Livonia in the past, we have always lived up to our word, and we
have a pretty good track record.
Mr. Morrow: Just so I understand you, is there going to be a berm back there
in the 30 feet?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: How are you going to build a berm with all those trees there?
Mr. Mahn: If there is say 15 feet of trees, the berm will continue. I
don't believe you can put a berm on top of trees.
Mr. Morrow: Were you going to plant any evergreens back there in addition to
the trees?
Mr. Mahn: Anything that would help enhance the entire site.
Mr. Morrow: Then your proposal would be to put that in, in lieu of a wall?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Morrow did an excellent job of asking
questions. He really covered my concerns about whether it is
ground level or stack level storage. I wanted to know the number
of feet of trees that were there because they are deciduous and
in the winter time you would not have a screen there. I was
wondering if your greenbelt referred only to trees or whether you
were going to build an additional greenbelt in front of that of
deciduous trees with some types of evergreen to screen that
storage?
Mr. Mahn: Whatever encompasses in that 30 feet. If there are only 10 foot
of trees, we will have a berm of 20 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: If that area is 30 feet, you will not have a berm?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
14177
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize when those trees lose all their leaves, your boats
will be totally in view of this residential area. Are you aware
of that?
Mr. Mahn: We haven't surveyed the back end of this property in regards to
the amount of feet of trees. As soon as we get into that, I
could more intelligently answer your question regarding whether
we could add berm or other trees or evergreens or something that
would keep their leaves or needles so we can have that screening
for the residents behind us.
Mr. Piercecchi: Doesn't the C-2 either require a wall or we can waive that wall
and go with a berm?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes, you can approve a berm or greenbelt in lieu of a wall.
Mr. Mahn: If you recommend a wall rather than a berm, if the neighbors
would prefer a wall rather than a berm, that is fine with us. I
would think that the evergreen or berm would be more of a natural
concept for the residents as well as everybody else on the site.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with you if the berm was going to be covered with
evergreen type of trccs. Your original discussion here indicated
that there are 30 feet of trees in the back. Deciduous trees, 30
feet will not be a screen for those residential homes because
they lose their leaves. I am sure the people in that area would
not appreciate that.
Mr. Mahn: The neighbors would know how many feet of trees are there. When
I said there are 30 feet, we had a rebuttal from the audience so
maybe they can more intelligently tell you how many feet of trees
there are.
Mr. Piercecchi: I tried to walk it Sunday but it is too difficult back there. It
is a beautiful area but I couldn't pace it off because it was
difficult to do.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Mahn, you said you wanted to put a boat company in there.
Would they be going in the new west side building or the east
side existing building?
Mr. Mahn: The existing latter end of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: How many square feet?
Mr. Mahn: 2600 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: You said they are in Livonia at the present time?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that the firm next to Chimento's Market?
14178
Mr. Mahn: No sir. It is on Inkster Road in Livonia.
Mr. LaPine: I think you stated it would be for storage of boats and boat
repairs. Did you say that?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: What type of repairs are we talking about? Are we talking about
boats being put up on a hoist and worked on outside? Can you
explain it to me?
Mr. Mahn: The work place would be inside the building. There are four
10-foot overhead doors as well as one 12-foot. The larger boat
would fit under the 12-footer. There would not be any repairs
done on the outside.
Mrs. Blomberg: You said their present business is naw on Inkster Road. Where
exactly is that?
Mr. Mahn: Near the railroad tracks across from the old lumber company that
was there at one time.
Mrs. Blomberg: It is basically a boat repair, from what I remember, at that
location.
Mr. Mahn: Basically I believe it is both repairs and storage.
Mrs. Blomberg: Are they new boats that they sell?
Mr. Mahn: No Ma'am.
Mrs. Blomberg: They just simply repair them and store these used boats on the
property. So they will not be selling new boats at all. I got
the wrong impression there.
Mr. Piercecchi: I heard you say you were going to use 2600 square feet of that
building?
Mr. Mahn: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: That building is 12,180 square feet. What about the remainder?
Mr. Mahn: The front cell of the building is Auto One who are related in
cellular electronics, etc. Unit B would be Auto Lab, which is
repairs of electronic systems of the car itself. In Unit C we
are looking strongly, we have had a lot of inquiries about
renting this space but we have been very selective in regards to
the stability of the tenants involved so we are looking for
franchisees that have some substance.
Mr. Piercecchi: So in effect what we are gaining here is 2600 square foot of
that property by permitting this rezoning. Is that correct?
14179
Mr. Mahn: I don't understand what you mean.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to occupy that building of 2600 square feet. That
is what the City would gain as a tenant in that building?
Mr. Mahn: The term "gain". I don't understand what you are saying.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to occupy 2600 square feet of that building?
Mr. Mahn: For boat repair and storage, yes.
Mr. Alanskas: When you are going to store boats, would they be on yokes?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the largest size boat you would be storing?
Mr. Mahn: I have no idea.
Mr. Alanskas: It could be any size at all.
Mr. fgebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
Richard Hoffer, 34054 Parkdale: I don't know if it is the intention of the
petitioner to purposely mislead the Commission. I have a
preliminary site plan. I know you don't deal with site plans.
It clearly states the greenbelt is 30 foot wide existing with
\.. evergreen tram. I live at 34054 Parkdale, which is the
narrowest part of that particular section of greenbelt. Behind
my house there are 90 foot of woods. We paced off about 30 foot.
That would leave about six or eight trees of depth where there
are now 90 foot of woods. In the summertime we can't see
Plymouth Road. We can't hear Plymouth Road. In the winter time
it is a problem because there are no leaves on the trees and you
are going to see it. There is no way that a 30 foot wide berm
consisting of raked dirt and evergreen trees is going to block us
from any business at all. I worked in the boating industry for
eight years. Wonderland Marine was one of them, which is where
Promotion Marine is now. The noise that comes out of a marina
is, running a boat is like running a car without a muffler.
There is no exhaust system on a boat. There is no noise
restriction at all. If they are going to be taking down the
trees, the trees that would remain will act as a funnel for the
noise to lead it right into our homes. Sixty-six of the 192
proposed parking spots are going to be behind a chain link fence
back behind the boat storage. I understand that is about
one-third of he parking that is required. I don't know if it is
true that there are not going to be any new boats sold. I worked
in the marine business for eight years. Storage racks are
normally 30 foot high. They store them three high. They lift
them with hi-lo's. It is an unsafe place to park. You can't
14180
have people back there when they are moving those hi-lo's, even
on the ground. They can't see where they are going half the
time. Hi-lo drivers are not licensed. It is a dangerous place
`N..• to be. You can't tell me 66 of these parking spots are going to
be utilized behind this building, behind a chain link fence.
What I am asking is we understand the area has to be developed.
It is an eyesore. There is no question about that. What we
would like to see is at least the 90 foot of woods remain. This
gives us a buffer from the businesses, which is what it was
intended to be. This whole area back there is parking. It is
going to break up the continuity of the area. It runs all the
way from the edge of the subdivision all the way to Farmington
Road. To have a big gaping hole would look bad from the street
side and otherwise. I know if they proposed to put this right on
Farmington Road, you probably wouldn't want to see it from the
City streets. We definitely don't want to see it from our
backyards and there is no way it can be hidden from us with a 30
foot berm. It just can't happen. We understand it has to be
developed but we would like to see the woods remain with some
additional shielding of berm or a wall the other side of the
woods. The business side of the woods would be acceptable,
something beyond what they are proposing here. I don't know if
you have seen the proposed site plan, you are welcome to look at
it.
Mr. Engebretson: It is not really an issue tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi: Where is that 90 foot of wooded area that you referring to ?
(Mr. Hoffer pointed this area out on the map)
Mr. Hoffer: I would also like to be notified of any meetings held on this
particular matter, if that is possible.
Patrick Barry, 34090 Parkdale: Rich said a lot of things we want to say. The
first thing I would like to say is the petitioner has proposed to
fill about 2600 square feet at this point. He indicates there
have been inquiries about renting out the rest. I would point
out this, as presented, is a gross overdevelopment of this site.
There are lots and lots of vacant property and vacant buildings
in Livonia, certainly along Plymouth Road, and proposed to take
out 2600 square feet of this and leave the first two to three
cells, as he called them, without a tenant at this point, and
then to build three more buildings sometime in the future, it
just smacks very much of the development we have back there. We
came several times before this group many years ago when Mr.
Ifrate wanted to do this, and he had great plans too, and that
has sat undeveloped for ten years. We want to see it developed.
We think it is an eyesore just like you do. We don't want to see
it sitting there like it is now, but to propose this with this
development is just an awfully intense amount when there are
vacant buildings all over the City, and he only has a tenant for
2600 square feet, and he proposes to build three other buildings
14181
in order to justify the additional parking, which is really for
boat storage. So we think it is an overdevelopment of this
particular site. A couple of other points I would like to make.
`.. You know you can't get woods back. Mr. Ifrate took out about 60
foot of woods the first time he did this to put in a berm, which
is just a pile of dirt which has sat there for ten years with
weeds growing on it, and now we are talking about taking out
essentially this whole woods. It doesn't say anything about
leaving the woods in the site plan. It says raked dirt and some
pine trcc , and they propose to put a fence there as the site
plan tells you, and I can tell you what is going to happen to
that raked dirt in about three months. It is going to be a huge
weed pile. There will be some pine trees but unless they have a
fence they will have no way to access that so unless they go back
and cut down the weeds we are going to be looking at weeds with
some pine trccs about three to four feet tall and that is what we
are going to see. I am in the marine business as well. I can
tell you haw noisy it is, and we won't have a buffer. If we have
30 feet, whether it is weeds or pine trees, we will not have a
buffer. We will have the sound pouring into that house six days
a week. Marinas work on Saturdays too. We will have the noise
six days a week from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. I would point out
mature woods, you can never get them back. If they take that out
with the potential that some day we may need all that, we can
never get it back. It will certainly not look very good. Also,
in terms of boat storage, I don't know if there is any way to
control the rack storage but I have not seen marinas in many
places that don't go to rack storage very fast because they can
triple their area of storage, and now we will be looking at stuff
30 to 35 feet in the air if they went to rack storage. It just
seems to me this is a gross overdevelopment and 30 feet will not
shield us. There is 90 foot of woods there. I assure you.
Thirty feet is not going to shield us. Putting up pine trees is
not going to shield us. This development doesn't need to be
developed like this. He has one tenant for 2600 square feet. We
just don't feel it is warranted. There are plenty of boat
storage places. I store my boat in Livonia. They don't need to
do it behind residences.
Jim Messineo, 34072 Parkdale: Essentially my yard is at the middle of the proposed
rezoning. To start with, to ease your mind, this is a wooded
area back there. I am an engineer that works for Wade Trim
Associates, a civil engineering firm. We are very familiar with
the techniques of survey. I surveyed the area, and the area is
plus or minus 3 feet, 90 feet. From the back end of my property
line to the north end of the wooded area is 90 feet, plus or
minus 3 feet. The area proposed to be rezoned from parking to
C-2 is unacceptable. All the areas along there are parking. The
parking, through your wisdom in the past, has been there to
separate the commercial from the residential. That is because
commercial is not compatible with residential. TO classify that
parking to C-2, you would open the door for
14182
anything allowed under C-2. It could be boat storage today and
in the future it could be a fast-food restaurant, anything under
your listing for C-2. By doing that you allow C-2 right up to my
back yard. That is incompatible. It is not acceptable. I hope
in your wisdom, as you have in the past, that you continue to
leave that parking buffer there that we need to keep our
residents and our homes safe and to keep our homes separated from
commercial. It just won't work.
Dan Prevost, 34144 Parkdale: I will be brief. We have lived there for a number of
years, around 14 to 15. Plymouth Road has changed complexion
quite a bit over the years. Most of it has been improvements. I
have been very happy with the changes that are going on. I feel
boat storage does not match the complexion of the way the
neighborhood has been improving. I think boat storage would be a
step backwards. I think it is the type of thing that would be
more appropriate for an industrial type of area towards the
expressway. One other problem I have is the rezoning of the 30
feet to RUF. Currently, if other people put in a privacy fence,
you would have a potential zig-zag effect at the back, and I
guess I would like to see the same kind of thing all the way
across.
Corrine Collins, 34036 Parkdale: I am against this petition. I have enjoyed the
woods for about ten years and that is why I chose that lot
because it had a woods behind it. It is buffered from the
commercial in the front. Mr. Ifrate started his development,
which really was a horrible mess for ten years, and he was able
to renege so many times on the City Council on the things he
promised, and he always got out of them, and we were left with a
mess to look at. I feel we are owed something here because we
put up with that developer, and now they are proposing to give us
a boat storage right up almost to the back of our property. That
is going to decrease our property value a lot. You better
believe we are going to ask for our taxes to be cut because it
will decrease our property value. We are also thinking if that
is that close and they are going to need lights back there, think
about the lights coming into our backyards, coming into our
bedrooms. I am sure you wouldn't like that so please think about
that too. We don't want the sound. We don't want the lights.
We don't want the value of our property to go down, and once the
woods are cut, they won't grow back. Please think about that.
Businesses come and go but woods don't.
Frances Hoffer, 34054 Parkdale: We are Lot 23, which is directly behind this
property that is proposed for rezoning. As you know, we are all
very much against this. My neighbors and my husband made some
very good points about it. I think there is one thing that you
members here need to understand, it is the way our houses are
built. Most of us have family rooms or great rooms that do face
the back and not the front. Our house in particular we have two
large doorwalls and two windows in our master bedroom that do
14183
face the back area. Therefore, we are affected a lot by the
noise and lights and traffic, and the various things that go on
along Plymouth Road. Obviously, putting in a 30 foot berm is not
going to be an adequate buffer. We have all said it. Everyone
knows it. It is no major secret. What we would like to see is
our existing woods there and a berm put behind it. In the five
years that I have lived in this house, City Council has promised
that to us over and over and over. We have gone back year after
year with Mr. Ifrate regarding this berm. Anyone who has been
back there knows there is no berm back there. It is a bunch of
garbage that he bulldozed back in the woods. I walked back there
yesterday and it is a bunch of pits and piles and you can barely
get through there. It is a total mess. Obviously, a new berm is
going to cause a problem with upkeep. Our particular lot is
lower than the other ones and we tend to flood as it is. A berm
will directly flaw our property. We don't want a berm. It is
not protection. We want the woods and we want a berm behind it,
and if you go through the other properties, the commercial
places like Thomas', they have a berm behind them, as well as the
other businesses. We want to see the petitioner go ahead and
develop this property but by putting C-2 directly in our
backyards, I don't think it is going to do anybody any service.
Mr. Ifrate could not get his property developed. He could not
get it going. This gentleman may be different. He may be able
to make that thrive and be a success, but what if he doesn't.
The people that are going to have to look at that are the people
from Plymouth Road, but more than that we are the ones that are
going to have to look at that. As far as I have seen the boating
business is very volatile. I have seen just recently Wonderland
Marine go out of business. I don't know if this is the same type
of business but it is a volatile hisiness. We don't know if it
is even going to be around. Once they tear down the woods, once
this goes through, as my neighbor said, they can put anything
back there. At this point we would certainly appreciate it if
you could recommend that this not go through. We are very
concerned about what this will do to not only our property value
but also the quality of our lives because it would definitely be
detrimental.
Mr. Morrow: John, we alluded earlier to the original approval of this site.
In that approval how was the woods addressed? Do you recall?
Mr. Nagy: The use was confined to the area zoned C-2. The waiver use ran
with the portion zoned C-2 and not the parking area.
Mr. Marrow: Was there any talk about leaving the woods in its natural state.
Mr. Nagy: No, it was just to be left undisturbed on the site plan, and
identified as a greenbelt area.
Mr. LaPine: John, assuming this passes and it became C-2, right now we know
what he is going to do. If in the future he wanted to develop
that assuming he had the parking, could he develop a building
back there as long as he had parking?
14184
Mr. Nagy: He could develop a building on the area zoned C-2 and use the
area zoned parking to support the buildings within the commercial
area. You could have a parking lot extended into that area as
such because it would permit off-street parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Mahn any other comments?
Mr. Mahn: I just wanted to impress upon the Planning Commission that
whatever we put there, whether it be a berm or evergreens,
whatever, we are going to maintain them in a good workmanlike
manner like things we have done in the past for the City of
Livonia. These are different people now. They own the property,
and my company is managing it, and it is going to be a success
because the majority of the things I do are a success.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-4-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-103-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-4-1-7 by John
Mahn for Dominic Lib.rd; requesting to rezone property located south
of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 33 from P to C-2 and RUF, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-4-1-7 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning would permit a commercial zoning
district and commercial uses in closer proximity to a residential
area;
2) That the subject property can currently be utilized for off-street
parking to support commercial uses on the existing C-2 zoned
portion of the property;
3) That the proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to and not
in harmony with the residential zoning and uses in the area;
4) That the proposed change of zoning would encourage similar requests
for changes of zoning on other similarly situated properties in the
area; and
5) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which
would not be compatible to adjacent residential uscs in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: I am going to vote in favor of the denial primarily because as
14185
one of the people that addressed us tonight said it would
certainly be in my mind, and as Mr. LaPine said, spot zoning to
drop commercial in closer to the residential, which could pave
the way for the domino effect both east and west.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-1-8
by Thomas Guastello requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We
also received a phone call this afternoon from a Kathryn Turner
of 29213 Perth who called because she is unable to attend the
public hearing and she would like to go on record that she is
opposed to Petition 95-5-1-8. She does not want anything by her
home that is opened past 10:00 p.m. because of the noise it would
create. It is her understanding that there would be dumpsters
behind her home and shared parking with office employees and she
is opposed to that.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please cane forward.
Thomas Guastello, 15850 Hall Road, Clinton Township: I am the property owner, and
I have a proposed use for the property. I would like to, with
your permission, set up an easel to show you sane of the historic
changes in the area. Back in 1985 this area was largely
commercial on the other side of the freeway. There were two
restaurant sites in here, Chi Chi's, which is approximately
12,000 square feet, and the Olive Garden. All the yellow shown
here was residential. As a result of the growth and progress of
this community some changes have occurred since then. Those
changes can be illustrated by this drawing. (He presented the
drawing). Basically what this does rather graphically is the
Council has zoned this area to allow for a home improvement store
and a restaurant. This would stay commercial. This would stay
commercial and a party store has come in here as well as an
insurance office and senior housing. As the owner of this piece
we have tried I think as diligently as we know haw for a very
long period of time to market this piece. When we originally
came in with office zoning here, we had hoped to be able to get a
bank here. I think everyone knows rather than growing, the
number of banks have shrunk. We have virtually contacted every
bank and S & L in the area and found there is in fact, not a
desire, not a market to put a bank there. There have been
numerous studies in this community that says offices won't work,
which leads us to our proposed new use, which we have tried to be
14186
sensitive to some of the concerns with. This use would be an
Applebee's Restaurant. Why this is new and improved is I think
Applebee's Restaurant would be less than half the size of Chi
`r.. Chi's. It would be 3/4 the size of Olive Garden. In addition to
that, you would have a 20-foot area that would allow us to do
double landscaping on it. In addition to that, we have
landscaping next to the building, and I can share with this
Commission the picture of the building and I am sure you will
agree it is very attractive and kind of homey looking. It is a
neighborhood business. The concept has grown to a number of
units in the Unites States. They have done a good job in terms
of promoting neighborhood benefits and other things. They are
very involved in those things. Their hours are very limited
because they are primarily focused on the lunch and dinner hours.
They are not open for breakfast. In Westland and in Ann Arbor
they have received awards for having a hanging on the wall
depicting the local areas. They participated in a number of
events in the community. They were founded 14 years ago and they
now have, by the the end of 1983 they had 361 restaurants,
mid-1994 there were 400 restaurants in 48 states. They are very
stable. They are very community oriented. They understand the
needs and concerns of this community to really provide a first
class environment for everyone that is there and more importantly
for the area. It represents the only lunch/dinner house that
would provide traditional foods providing a supplement to the
bevy of ethnic restaurants that are there now. I would be glad
to answer any questions the Commission might have. The only
other thing I would like to point out is the site plan here shwas
a 20-foot buffer and it does show this here. We have built a
wall within the last week or so and it is the highest you can
build, that is a 7-foot wall that accompanies the 6-foot wall,
which at that time was the highest you could build on the rear
portion of the property line. We are very proud of the
development that is there, the Buckingham Office Park, and this
would be the finishing piece to that development. The users of
the park are very important, and we think with the hours it could
be a very short duration type operation in terms of their hours.
Also their dumpsters are located in the back area where they
would not be accessing close to neighbors. In addition to that
we have conditions for employee parking that would be off site
and not in this area. I would be glad to answer any questions
that the Planning Commission might have.
Mr. Alanskas: You said Chi Chi's is 12,000 square feet. This would be 6,000
square feet?
Mr. Guastello: This is 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: What would the size of the building be?
Mr. Guastello: Approximately 50'x160'.
14187
Mr. Alanskas: How many seats?
Mr. Guastello: 174 seats.
Mrs. Blomberg: When I was visiting a Westland's Applebees, they had speakers
outside that were playing loud music. Is this part of the plan
for this?
Mr. Guastello: I would not allow them to have speakers outside.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience.
'Ibny Simari, 29345 Perth: First of all I would like to thank you all for taking
the time to listen to us. Even though I know it is required we
can tell from watching you that you truly are listening and not
just giving it lip service. My neighbors and myself appreciate
that. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time we have been here
to talk about this. We have seen each other probably too often.
I could go on about some of the issues that were brought up
before, our concerns with property value that are not
appreciating to Livonia standards, but more important over
concentation of commercial property,especially bars and
restaurants in this area. This is not new news to you. I think
you are all aware of this from the previous times we were here.
I do have a concern that the last time we were here an issue was
brought up from Livonia City Council that indicated that a deed
restriction was supposed to be on this property, so I am somewhat
confused as to why we are even here discussing this issue if
there is a restriction in place. If there is not a restriction
in place, the requirement of what is now the Olive Garden
Restaurant, to get that zoning change, according to the City
Council, was to have a deed restriction put on this property.
With my lack of wisdom I am somewhat confused as to why we are
here, and if we are here, why the City has let a restaurant
operate in violation for over ten years. I am somewhat confused.
I don't like to put people on the spot. I would like to come to
City Hall tomorrow and discuss it with someone because I would
like to better understand the situation. I don't want to take
too much time. I have other neighbors here. I would like you to
keep in mind the many, many things that were brought up many,
many times before. And again, thank you for your time.
James Paison, 29321 Perth: I would like to say this doesn't fit into the
surrounding community. We would be completely happy with
offices. It is a bar and grill. It would be backing out to my
neighbor's property and we have little kids playing out there.
That court is full of little kids playing back there, and it
tends to attract a younger crowd after dinner. At lunch time and
dinner time you get families but after that, it is a bar. You
attract a younger crowd. We have been in here fighting many
times and we would like for you to reject this and send it on to
the Council as a rejection because we don't feel it fits back
there.
14188
John Fleischer, 29313 Perth: I would like to say I am opposed to this rezoning
mainly due to the fact that there was a commitment made by this
landowner in regard to not putting up another restaurant. The
�.. commitment was made to the neighbors as well as to City Council
members at that time. Also the reason for the commitment was a
barrier for the residences and we would like for you to uphold
that commitment that was made, and also there is a concern that I
have with the value of my home. I feel that the value would be
greatly reduced due to the fact of having a restaurant in your
backyard due to the obvious issues of noise, additional traffic,
the issue of the speaker noise outside. There are only two
additional restaurants that have since come to the area and that
has increased the traffic flaw in that allow. We have a concern
with that. Just getting out from my street to turn on to
Middlebelt, it is a greatly congested area. The fact, also, that
Applebee's does have a bar, is a concern to the neighbors, the
sort of clientele that would be going into the restaurant late
and night, and the obvious crime that could occur due to that
sort of environment. I feel there are enough restaurants already
in the area. We would have no objections to an office building
or a bank. I guess we have looked at it that it has been
undeveloped this long, I don't think it would hurt to leave that
property undeveloped a little longer until something that is
office related comes along.
Mary Toovalian, 29305 Perth: I am against this petition. I have been against it.
I was there when we petitioned for Mike Kelly's and the
commitment was made. That commitment was made with Mr. Taylor
and Mayor Bennett at the time. I don't understand why we are
here again fighting this same thing three years later. That
commitment was reaffirmed three years ago by the City Council.
Now what is this? Another restaurant? My goodness, this was
mentioned when they first put Chili's in there. Are we going to
make this a restaurant raw. Now we have China Coast. We have
Chi Chi's. We have Olive Garden. We have Outback. How many
more restaurants can operate in that area. You're smacking it
right in residential. Dumpsters, garbage, people going in and
out. Don't you think we have enough noise there now? That is a
residential area also. I am strictly against this as long as I
own that property.
Mike Sivori: 29289 Perth: I want to go on record saying I am opposed to this. I
am in the delivery business. I deliver to Applebees. I know
they buy a lot of alcohol because I deliver them alcohol. Their
garbage areas are dirty. They stink. Right now when I get up in
the morning I look out my bathroom window at 6 o'clock in the
morning and I see two trucks lined up at Olive Garden four to
five days a week waiting to unload. Now they are going to be
that much closer to our house so we will hear them come and
unload the dumpsters. We hear that stuff and now you are going
to put it right on top of us.
14189
Karen Paison, 29321 Perth: I am solely against it. The traffic is horrendous out
there. This office service zoning was meant to be a buffer for
us residents, and Mr. Guastello had mentioned we have a lot of
C-2 there and you are just pushing the residential people out of
here, and it is not fair to us. The traffic is really bad and
especially across at State Farm, that is supposed to be 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. My house backs up to Middlebelt and there are semi
trucks turning around in there, and it is just terrible. We just
don't need it. I am afraid for my kids to play out there.
People come around and turn on our court because they missed the
Olive Garden or whatever. It is terrible, and you need to really
think about this and deny it.
Sharon Fleischer, 29313 Perth Ct. : At the risk of sounding repetitive here, this
isn't the first time you have heard my opposition to the rezoning
of this property. My husband and I have lived in Livonia for
seven years and we have really enjoyed it. We picked Livonia
because we heard what a great community it was when we moved to
Michigan. I feel as being a property owner and a taxpayer, that
I also have things that are owed to me. When we bought this home
it wasn't like we opened our windows one day and saw an empty
lot and wondered what was going to happen and how it was going to
be developed. We looked into this property and we were under
the understanding that it was zoned OS because that would provide
the neighbors in that area with a fair and deserving barrier,
which an office is something that I think just about anybody can
live with in their backyard, but a restaurant that is open until
11:00 p.m. or midnight, whatever. When you take the walls down
and the brick, or whatever the building is made of, inside you
have a full-service bar, and the action that is carried outside
from a bar, I think we are all very aware of that, people
celebrating 21st birthdays, people celebrating a retirement,
whatever. Somebody has a couple of drinks too many. Who is
going to hear that at midnight, one o'clock? I am going to hear
that. I will never be able to sleep if I have my windows open.
I was told a couple of years back when it was first brought up, I
have air conditioning. Yes I have air conditioning, but I feel I
should have the choice of opening my windows and getting a nice
breeze when I choose to do so. I found that to be very
ludicrous. I like to sit out on my back patio. I work hard. I
sometimes work 50 to 55 hours a week. My husband works a lot of
hours. We are very hard-working people, and we are ones that
like to relax at home when we are off. We don't go out much. We
are not into partying. We like to sit outside and visit with our
neighbors and enjoy our home that we maintain and keep up very
nicely, and for someone to say to me it is okay to hear car doors
all hours of the evening and morning, and to smell dumpsters, and
have employees leaving. A lot of people look at the hours of a
restaurant and say they close at ten or eleven. I work in a
restaurant so I can speak firsthand that employees will leave at
midnight and one o'clock. Painting, carpet cleaning, you will
have people leaving the restaurant at two and three o'clock in
14190
the morning, and this is just not once in a great while, it is
quite often. I feel for anybody to say that this is a fair thing
to put in someone's backyard, right smack up against our yard, I
don't care if there is a six-foot wall, or a seven-foot wall or
an eight-foot wall, it is still not going to block the noise and
it is not going to keep us from being subjected to things that we
will be subjected to. I do feel there was a commitment made on
this property by the City of Livonia, and I feel the Council did
reinforce that commitment in 1992 when they voted in our favor.
I think they voted the way they did because they knew that was
fair. We very much appreciated that, and we just hope when this
is considered, when it is taken upstairs or wherever it goes,
that the people that gave us that promise and gave us that
commitment three years ago, stick with their word, being just a
humanity thing. I don't see how anybody could vote differently
on this in 1995 than they did in 1992. If it wasn't fair to put
it there in 1992, nothing has changed. The only thing, in my
mind, that has changed is that property has sat there
undeveloped, but that is not our problem. My husband and I have
one investment in this world, and that is our home, and to say
just flush it away so someone else can make more money, I don't
think that is fair. We do appreciate the time and consideration
you gave us and I hope the Council people will also keep us in
mind. Mr. Engebretson, I don't know if this is the time or not
but we do have a valid protest that we would like to submit.
Mr. Engebretson: You can pass it to Mrs. Garvey.
Mrs. Fleischer: Thank you.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, that will go through the normal process?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it will.
Mr. Engehretson: Would it be your impression that what you are looking at there,
does that constitute a valid protPst?
Mr. Nagy: I will have to evaluate the signatures against the adjoining
property and see if they are, in fact, within 100 feet of the
area. I cannot answer it without actually checking the records.
Mr. Engebretson: For the benefit of the neighbors who are here that did sign the
petition, could you give a quick recap of what constitutes a
valid protest requiring a simple majority of the Council?
Mr. Nagy: Last time there was a valid protest, and it is very likely that
we would have one now. I think it is safe to say that many of
the same homeowners that have spoken tonight did last time so I
think it is would be a fair assessment to say they do in fact
have a valid protest. What constitutes a valid protest is anyone
opposing a zoning change that has property within 100 feet of the
area, if they meet a threshold requirement of 20% of that area
14191
within 100 feet surrounding the entire property area, excluding
any publicly owned land such as roads, alleys, parks, etc. , it
will required a 3/4th vote of Council to effect the zoning
change. A 3/4th vote of the Council would require six of the
seven affirmative vote.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, would you want to add any comments?
Mr. Guastello: I think this is a scaled-dawn use of the property. We have sat
here for ten years. We don't have another use for the property.
There isn't one that has been able to be developed. I think a
lot of the concerns of noise have been addressed or could be
addressed. We would like to do our best to be a good neighbor,
and to be able to put a nationally recognized chain here that
would provide employment for the citizens of this community as
well as a stable tax base to help provide the services that are
necessary to keep the City of Livonia in the nation's best
community. That is basically what the considerations are here.
We have had a number of requests for restaurants in the area. We
picked Applebee's because they are primarily a restaurant. They
are a smaller user than the proposed user in 1992 and
additionally coming in with this plan we have doubled the
landscaping. We have a higher wall and I think we have a good
user. I would be glad to answer any questions this Commission
might have. I have tried to do everything we can in this area to
be able to have a worthwhile development. I feel we have that
with this proposed Applebee's use.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, I don't want a rerun of 1992 but in reflecting on
some of the comments some of the neighbors have made, I am also
concerned about the fact that we are here talking about a
restaurant when there were multiple occasions in the past when
commitments were made that this area would never be developed for
a restaurant use. I am just wondering how you no longer see that
commitment as no longer being valid.
Mr. Guastello: You were represented by Harry Tatigian. If the commitment is
valid, there is no point in us being here. The commitment, in
fact, was not valid. That was a codicil or a condition between
a property owner and a tenant. The tenant asked for it. The
commitment passes to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the
purchaser and the seller and therein it is not binding upon the
City, it is not binding upon any other person. That commitment,
and I think Mr. Chairman I am actually glad you raised it, I
think it is demigod to say that that commitment is in any way
binding on me or the City or anyone else other than who it was
proposed to be given to. As a result there are two things that
occurred. Number one, there wasn't a sale on the property.
Kelly Johnston did not buy the property. They leased it. Number
two, in leasing the property they did not insist that a
declaration be issued. Those were the different conditions
involved in that. Thank you for raising it.
14192
Mr. Engebretson: I am glad that you are glad that I raised the issue. I am at a
real disadvantage tonight because it is very difficult to speak.
Mr. Guastello: There is a God.
Mr. Engehretson: I beg your pardon.
Mr. Guastello: God bless you.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand from a legal point of view that what you just
articulated is actually correct from the standpoint of legal
implications of that deed restriction, but at the same time on
numerous occasions you made commitments to the Planning
Commission, to the City Council, that there wouldn't be a
restaurant built on that site, having nothing to do with that
deed restriction but the deed restriction was referenced by the
City Council in their resolution where they approved the zoning
changes that you were seeking, and they made it a part of the
resolution so there would be an opportunity in the future to
understand better what had happened, at least that is my
impression, so my inquiry has more to do with the commitments
accorded to you in 1992 that have nothing to do with that codicil
that you refer to that there were various forms of commitment
made that you would stop the commercial at the point that it now
exists and there would be a buffer there for the benefit of the
residents. I don't want to rerun the hearing. It is
inappropriate to go through the whole process again. The public
record speaks for itself, I believe, but I just wanted to raise
the question.
`�.• Mr. Guastello: I thought I addressed the question. Initially when we went in,
with the users, we went in with the expectation that we would put
a bank in there. I think under any fairness, after trying for
ten years trying to find another feasible user, we have not been
able to do that. In addition to that, there has been a dramatic
change in the area. Where we were surrounded on two sides by
residential, this area has become one of the major hubs of the
City, and because of that I feel comfortable with this. I
understand some of the concerns but I think this is a good use
that would be good for the City and I would like to be considered
in that light. I think I have a right to have it considered.
Mr. Engebretson: Well you certainly do. There is no question about that. I am
not going to pursue all of these various references to the
commitments that were made by you. It is all a matter of public
record in the October 1992 public hearing, and anyone that is
interested in them, can get it out of there.
Mr. Alanskas: When you said you tried to put a bank in there, what were you
talking square footage for a bank, roughly?
Mr. Guastello: Approximately the same size, 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: At that size you can't get any OS to come in that area?
Mr. Guastello: No.
Mr. Alanskas: We can't get any bank to come in that area.
14193
Mrs. Blomberg: What percentage of your offices at Buckingham are vacant today?
Mr. Guastello: Approximately 10% with approximately 70% of the leases coming up
in three years or less. There have been a number of studies in
Livonia indicating in the last several years the demand for
offices seems to be met very well for the City of Livonia.
Mr. TaPine: Are you basing your reasoning for why you think that property
should be rezoned to C-2 based on the fact that the Home Quarters
property was rezoned to bring in China Coast?
Mr. Guastello: I guess I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your question. I
think the fact that the entire area has changed dramatically in
ten years would to me indicate that the use would be more
harmonious with at 1Past a portion of the surrounding uses, and I
think it is one of the elements necessary. I think there are
several other elements necessary and that is that there not be
another use readily available and economically feasible for this
property. I think based upon that criteria, the changing area,
we are just not riding into town on a horse. I have been here
trying to market the property, haven't marketed the property and
the one constant demand we get for the property, the one thing we
get asked for is restaurants and we have been very discerning
about that. We think we have a national tenant who could add
something to this community.
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask you this question then. I think you made the remark
of the fact that you didn't feel there was any more need for
office space. Basically that is what you said. My question is
how much of your office space is now leased?
Mr. Guastello: We have approximately 90% leased.
Mt. LaPine: So there is the possibility that if you get the other 10% leased,
there may be inquiries for additional office space in that area?
I think we were all led to believe that was what was going to go
there, another one of your office buildings.
Mr. Guastello: In answer to that, with the best guess that we have, with the
consultants we have engaged, they indicate that the size of the
park for the area adequately meets the demand. We have had to
get very, very, very aggressive with lease rates in order to fill
the buildings, and we are very hopeful. For example, we have an
entire building of 14,000 sq. ft. leased to Triple A. After I
open the paper to the sports page to see how the Red Wings did,
the next thing I do is go to the business page to make sure
Triple A isn't doing any more consolidating because I am frankly
worried that we are going to have 14,000 sq. ft. there. The life
of the building we sat there with a lot lower vacancies, and we
are not up to right now in 1995 where we projected we would be in
1985, and everything else has gone up. We have been dramatically
under market with rents. In all fairness Mr. LaPine, I don't see
any kind of need for that type of office in that area.
14194
Mr. rapine: Have you had any inquiries on that property for any other zoning
or any other type of establishments other than a C-2, maybe
another type of business but not a restaurant? I guess my
problem is number one, I voted against the rezoning for Home
Quarters. I voted against the rezoning for China Coast. I think
there is so much traffic in that area now, I think an additional
restaurant would generate too much traffic, and when you consider
that one road you have going east and west, I assume the same
road would service the restaurant. I think it is going to
create too much traffic. That is my personal opinion. I am just
curious, is there any other type of business that could go there
that you have been approached on?
Mr. Guastello: We have been approached by National Coney Island. They are
interested in going in there. Pizza Uno is interested in going
in there. We have gotten a couple of party stores that are
interested in going there that we thought would be very intrusive
on the neighborhood. Hooters has been interested in going in
there. We told them not to bother. We have had some overtures
from TGI Fridays going there. We occasionally get a call from a
broker who will not identify the user, but in talking to them
almost inevitably they indicate that it is a restaurant user.
We have aggressively tried to seek, and the City has helped us,
by giving us names of banks or S & L's that might go there, but
they have never been able to get the site approved.
Mr. LaPine: I think you have made a good effort to do it. It seems to me we
are well serviced in that area with restaurants. I am opposed to
C-2 zoning down at Victor's property, Dave Johnson's property. I
think we have to hold the line here. I really believe that
eventually you are going to get a tenant there in an office
complex.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-5-1-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-104-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June
13, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-5-1-8 by
Thomas Guastello requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from OS to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend mnend to the City Council that Petition
95-5-1-8 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan designation of Office for this subject property;
2) That there is no demonstrated need for more of the type of uses
which can be accommodated by the proposed zoning district;
14195
3) That the proposed change of zoning will not maintain the buffer
zone concept whereby a more restrictive zoning district is placed
between a more intensively used, less restrictive district and
�.. residential development so as to lessen any negative external
effects which tend to erode the peace, tranquility and enjoyment
of the residential area;
4) That the proposed change of zoning to a less restrictive zoning
classification will provide for a development which will increase
traffic congestion in the area; and
5) That the placement of the existing office uses on adjacent
properties were predicated on the notion that the extension of
additional office uses onto the subject property would complete a
very logical development plan for the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to thank you Mr. Chairman for making available to me 30 or
40 odd pages of testimony that came before this honorable board
in 1992 and I certainly understand the frustration of these
residents that something keeps constantly, constantly coming up.
I would be very happy to join with the 92 board to deny this.
Mr. McCann: I want to let the petitioner and the people in the audience
understand, I do understand. He has a piece of property there
,` that he does hold in high value because it is in a very desirable
area in Livonia but he understood when he built in that area that
it was abutting a residential area. Certain obligations were
made and should be kept because the residents live there. They
are the ones who want to have a barbecue on Saturday afternoon.
They are the ones that have to go to bed at ten o'clock in the
evening to get up at five thirty to go to work, and you can't put
that type of use so close to homes without completely hurting
this type of life they lead. I believe it is in the best
interest of the neighborhood that we have to find something that
will be compatible for the neighbors but will give you the use of
your land which you pay taxes on. Hopefully you can find
something with more normal hours that will not interfere with the
people's lifestyles.
Mr. Morrow: Basically my concern here is, certainly Mr. Guastello has the
right to petition to change zoning but I go back far enough when
the property moved from apartments to the current zoning, my
feeling was that OS, at that time it was professional service,
was needed to gain my approval. Basically, I know he has tried
diligently to do it, but I hold firm on the fact that I think the
office service should remain as a buffer to the residential so
the commercial further to the south can prosper and live in
harmony with the abutting properties.
14196
Mr. Alanskas: I also am voting to deny this. Maybe Mr. Guastello you just had
some bad luck. I am not saying this to be factitious but just a
year ago on Newburgh and Six Mile we had Comerica Bank there for
NNW years and they left and within three months we had another person
in that property, yet in ten years you can't get somebody in this
property. Maybe just luck is not on your side. I don't
understand that but I just wanted to bring that to your
attention.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to confine my remarks to just a couple of comments. I
think that this proposed use would be a bad use under any
circumstances but I believe that the commitments that have been
made in the past by the petitioner that the City depended on to
develop the zoning that occurs throughout that property is a
commitment that must be fulfilled. If commitments don't mean
anything, then I guess we shouldn't bother seeking them. Mr.
Guastello made commitments repeatedly and I want to hold him to
them.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-1-9
by Tamera Mohlman requesting to rezone property located on the
northwest corner of Joy Road and Hartel Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 36 from C-1 to RUF.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Tamera Mohlman, 8863 Hartel: The reason why I am making this petition is we own
the whole property, the RUF and the commercial, and we had the
commercial piece for sale for quite some time, and have been
really unsuccessful in selling that. We are building a home
there right next door to it. We had a fire and we are
rehiilding. I am not sure I want to have commercial that close,
and the property is very small for commercial. The Pets and
Plants is up on a hill and the doctor's office, which is across
the street, is also very quiet, so I would really like to keep it
residential, the whole thing, if that is possible.
Mr. Morrow: The house that is shown on the property, is that the one that had
the fire?
Ms. Mohlman: Yes. Actually that might be the garage.
14197
Mr. Morrow: So the home would be just rebuilt in its existing location?
Ms. Mohlman: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: And the garage would remain there?
Ms. Mohlman: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: John, if we rezone that, what size home would go there, R-1
residential, 1,050 sq. ft.?
Mr. Nagy: Sure. They could go lower than 1,000 sq. ft. but the lot could
support something larger than that.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think it is strange to go from C-i to RUF. They generally go
the opposite way, RUF to C-1. Do you have people that wish to
purchase that property?
Ms. Mohlman: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why do you wish to go to RUF, which calls for 1/2 acre lots,
which it does not qualify for? You have 0.34 acres, which is
less than one half, and the other is 0.83.
Ms. Mohlman: If we were to sell that lot, my understanding is you would have
to have at least a 60 foot lot there, and I believe it would be
large enough, but we don't want to sell it. We just want to keep
it but if there was a buyer that came in and said we would like
to buy that, there would be no reason not to if it was sold
residential. I would rather have a residential house there than
a business. I am going to be living right next door.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize to sell that property as RUF zoning, you would have
to receive permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Are you
aware of that?
Ms. Mbhlman: No.
Mr. Engebretson: That is correct but we don't deal with that tonight.
Mrs. Blomberg: John, the wires go right over the garage. Would they not have to
be removed?
Mr. Nagy: They will have to deal with that as part of the building permit
process. They will have to be either relocated or provide Edison
with a new easement. It is something that Engineering and
Building will work out.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-5-1-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
14198
#6-105-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-1-9 by
re„ Tamera Mohlman requesting to rezoning property located on the northwest
corner of Joy Road and Hartel Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
36 from C-1 to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-5-1-9 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused commercial
zoning in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the adjacent residential zoning district; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the concept
of eliminating strip commercial zoning along major thoroughfares
in the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-1-11
by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six
Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 7 from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG to OS;
R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2.
Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. McCann
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
development of the various zoning areas will require detention of
storm water run-off. Further, please note that Fox Drive is a
private road. Finally, the petition should be reviewed in light
of the designated historical district in this area.
Mr. McCann: The paperwork reflects that we have new site plans.
Mr. Nagy: Certain changes have been made from the time the petition was
initially submitted and that is initially the area where the
church and cemetery area was part of the original rezoning
request, and that has now been deleted. Further there was going
to be a little bit of a land exchange so as to make a greater
connection between the property to the south and north of the
little day care nursery. That has now been eliminated, the land
14199
exchange. There is nothing involved in that area. All the
ingress and egress is now going to be taken front the private Fox
Drive of the college so that eliminates the need to try to bring
a road through that area from Six Mile north.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight?
David Phipps, 3699 Vorhies, Ann Arbor: We are proposing the rezoning change on this
parcel of property. We have a plan here. (He presented his
plan) . This area is proposed for an extended-stay hotel facility
and this would be a 50,000 sq. ft. office building with exposure
to the freeway. We would try to utilize it as a signature
building. The two commercial pieces would be here. It has been
somewhat of a difficult parcel to work with because of the
various cuts in it but as John said this cemetery will stay as a
cemetery. It is a historical site as far as the building is
concerned, and we have a lending institution that is looking at
that office site but we don't have anything concrete at this
point.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Phipps, could you explain to me what you mean by
extended-stay hotel?
Mr. Phipps: They will have like a mini-suite. There will be an area to cook
in and an area for refrigeration, like a kitchenette. We had
some meetings with the college and powers to be and they were
quite pleased with the fact there was going to be something
coming to town other than the standard motel-type room because
�... they do have visiting guest speakers and they have faculty that
comes in sometimes on a temporary basis. They were pleased that
it was going to be that type of a facility rather than just a
hotel room.
Mr. Morrow: Did you have someone interested in that property?
Mr. Phipps: Yes. We have Homewood Suites looking at it at this point.
Mr. Morrow: In your analysis of that, are there any hotels, motels of that
type on this side of town?
Mr. Phipps: No, it is something more affordable than the Embassy, and there
are no other facilities that I know of on this side of town that
has the kitchen facilities. They do have a Homewood over in
Warren and it has been very successful. It is in excess of 78%
occupancy and the room rates are around $75.00.
Mr. Morrow: As far as that commercial, is a strip mall any part of your plan?
Mr. Phipps: No. We are proposing a high-class restaurant facility here and
we would have a family-style unit here to help the hotel and the
office building.
14200
Mr. Morrow: You understand that would have to come back as a waiver type use?
Mr. Phipps: Yes I understand that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Phipps, what is going to be the assessed valuation of that
property? Currently that property is owned by a church and I
assume the taxes received on that piece of ground are basically
next to none. Can you give us an estimate on what the assessed
valuation on this property would be so we could figure out what a
great advantage it would be for the City to develop that odd
piece of property, and I am really delighted that someone is
taking a look at that piece of property.
Mr. Phipps: We think that tax revenue wise it would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of a quarter million dollars.
Mr. Piercecchi: A quarter of a million dollars a yPar?
Mr. Phipps: Yes. I would say in total. Presently it is owned by the church
and I don't think there are any taxes being paid on it but we
don't know that.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I understand you correctly sir, you are going to put in a
three-story residential hotel, three-story office building, a
family restaurant and an upscale, gourmet-type restaurant, not a
run-of-the mill that we have been accustomed to approving lately.
Mr. Phipps: That is correct.
Mr. Lapin: I have a problem. I think two restaurants, generally there is a
lot of traffic. The office building I have no problem because
once people drive in, they are there all day. The residential
inn, people are going to be there for two to three days but I
have a problem. In the middle of all this you have the home for
the aged. They are going to be covered on one side by a hotel
and on two sides by the restaurants. Have you made any proposals
to buy that property so we can get rid of that and make this
development different instead of having an old-age home.
Mr. Phipps: I did not pursue that nor was it asked of me to acquire it so I
can't tell you whether it is for sale or whether it isn't for
sale, or whether they are happy with it.
Mr. LaPine: Can you tell me who lives in that residential home? Do you know
how many people live there? Are they people that can take care
of themselves?
Mr. Phipps: I don't think it is a congregate care and I don't think it is a
convalescent center. My understanding is that it is a HUD
financed senior housing, which would be 55 years and older.
Mr. Nagy: It is senior housing.
14201
Mr. LaPine: Who owns that?
Mr. Phipps: Trinity Church.
Mr. T Pine: I think to have something like that surrounded by this, doesn't
hit me right. Maybe I am wrong.
Mr. Phipps: As I said earlier, it is a difficult parcel to deal with. You
have to do whatever you can to make it work.
Mr. I. Pine: I am getting to a point with these restaurants, we have
restaurants on top of restaurants on top of restaurants.
Somewhere along the line there has to be a halt.
Mr. Engehretson: A half an hour or so ago we heard there was no demand for office
in the City, and it appears that you have a completely different
point of view. Would it be your intention, if this zoning were
successful, to build that 50,000 sq. ft. building or would you go
out and market it and get leases before you construct the
building?
Mr. Phipps: The conversation we have going at this point in time would
utilize 2/3rds of that space, if they did in fact take it. 'Ib
answer your question, yes we would go out and get space leased
before we built it. We would not build that entire building on a
spec basis.
Mr. Engebretson: So nothing would be started until you had a satisfactory lease
signed.
Mr. Phipps: I think it is very, very difficult to generalize. The gentleman
that was here earlier is in a very different location than we are
in, and the famous saying of real estate is there are three
good things and that is location, location, location. I don't
think you will find anywhere near a 10% vacancy factor in that
section of town.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Phipps, are you buying this property on a contingency of
rezoning?
Mr. Phipps: No we are not.
Mr. Morrow: You are buying this property straight out?
Mr. Phipps: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any restaurants? When you say family, this isn't a
McDonalds?
Mr. Phipps: No. We will not do any fast-food restaurants.
Mr. JaPine: No fast-food restaurants?
14202
Mr. Phipps: No.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any potential tenants for the restaurants?
Mr. Phipps: We have been approached. I don't know if it is my place to say
the name at this point, but it is upscale.
Mr. LaPine: That is fine. Would one or both have a liquor license?
Mr. Phipps: One.
Mr. fligebretson: When you say it is your intention there would be no fast-food
restaurants developed on that property, what do you think that
should mean to us? Is that a commitment?
Mr. Phipps: I would think so. Maybe I should clarify what I consider
fast-food. That would be a McDonalds or a Wendys or something of
that nature.
Mr. Engebretson: So having said that, if you were to come back in a couple of
years from now and want to put one in there, we could definitely
haunt you with that statement?
Mr. Phipps: Yes.
Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone present
wishing to speak for or against this petition.
Wendy Bernard, 38911 Lapham: That is in Quakertown, which is directly across from
this proposed rezoning. When I saw the sign go up, and as a
resident that tries to get out of that subdivision from 4:45 p.m.
until 5:15 p.m. , and have sometimes waited 15 minutes to get out
in the morning in order to get in, the lineup is backed up. We
have that green office building, the parking lot is full. We
have, I believe it is the Northwest Office, to the west. There
is another bank office building at Six and Haggerty, and then
there is the Comerica building at the northeast corner of Six and
Haggerty. The traffic coming all the way through, it is
impossible. Right now there are people, I counted this evening
alone, six cars that went through, we have a divided median on
Quakertown Lane as you come in the sub, six cars waiting to get
out on Six Mile Road went through the "Do Not Enter" sign and
then went up and through the sub and then went out onto Haggerty
Road. The Livonia police regularly sit at my corner and ticket
those that do that. We have the office workers running stop
signs through there. It is a neighborhood full of children that
play. My house directly, I look at that property from where I am
at. That is a concern. Right now that green building has office
space 15,000 sq. ft. that is not leased, and it has been open for
quite a while. The building at Six Mile and Haggerty has office
space for lease. The building in Laurel Park, north of Six Mile
and Newburgh, in that area, both of those office buildings have
office space for lease. Flom that standpoint in that area there
14203
is quite a bit of office space still. I had meant to bring up
that hotel issue because right now we have three hotels within
one half a mile. One hotel within a mile and a half, and two
hotels in two miles of that corner. Restaurants, there is a Bill
Knapps, Dennisons and Max and Irma's within a half a mile. There
is Cookers, Macaroni Grill, at Seven Mile and Haggerty, which is
a mile, and I know pretty much for a fact there are proposed
three restaurants to go in at Six and Haggerty when that land is
sold. I guess I am very concerned about having more traffic
without having any way to get in and out. We are a landlocked
subdivision. We have no other way to get in and out other than
Haggerty and Six Mile and right now the traffic coming through is
quite heavy. Taxes paid on vacant land that a church owns, for
whatever that is worth. There is tax revenue coming into the
City on that property even though it is church owned.
Tom Malcolm, 38952 Rio Drive: I live in the Quakertown Subdivision. I live
directly south of Ms. Bernard's home. I just learned of this a
couple of days ago mainly because I guess we are beyond the 500
foot mark where they distribute the notice of this meeting, and I
did not see the sign that was out front, but Wendy did let me
know about it so I thought I would come here to state my
opposition to this petition. What I am concerned about, if you
all read yesterday how proud I am that Livonia is the eighth best
place in the country to raise children, which also I assume means
a great place to have a family, and when I see more hotels going
up, and more businesses going up, which of course means more
traffic, I see a lot of danger for safety. As you probably know,
along I-275 we have a bike path. We have a cross over Seven Mile
Road and I am concerned about the increased traffic for the
safety of children and adults crossing that place. I am also
concerned about traffic doing shortcuts through our subdivision
to go from Six Mile, which is impossible to get out of in the
evening, to Haggerty. I am concerned about traffic coming
through there, and sometimes people speeding through there, which
happens quite a bit, and children are obviously playing in the
area, sometimes playing near the street and that can cause a
danger. I am concerned about our reputation as being a great
place to raise children and families, having all this non-family
things like we have six hotels in the general area, we have
restaurants, we have a McDonalds just down the street as Wendy
mentioned. I have a real problem also hearing that we have a
need for office space. I know there is quite a bit of square
footage in the area that is out for lease right now. Obviously,
there is space so why do we need more buildings? Again, I am not
fully prepared for this because I just found out about it but
again reading that thing about Livonia being a great place to
raise children, I am concerned about my children. I have a 9
year old and an 11 year old. I am glad to be living in this
subdivision, which we have been living in for seven years. I
know I understood when I bought my home that there would be some
development along the I-275 corridor, but then again I am looking
14204
at this historical area, looking at how beautiful the area is. I
know that may not be a tax base you all would like but I also
think about the families of that cemetery. I am not related to
anyone that I know of in that cemetery but I am concerned with
all this building around, haw much are we respecting the
deceased as well as the historical area by surrounding it with
hotels, office buildings and restaurants. I hope you would deny
this petition.
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else to speak on this petition, we will allow
the petitioner to have the last statement. Do you have anything
further you would like to tell us?
Mr. Phipps: The only thing I would like to address would be that our
statistics don't show the office space not being in demand in
that area. There is nothing more I can add.
Mr. Alanskas: Seeing that Mr. Phipps said that parcel is being purchased and
not contingent upon the rezoning changes, there is a lot here
tonight to digest, I would like to have a tabling resolution to
date uncertain.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-5-1-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-106-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-1-11 by J-P
Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile
Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7
from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to c-2; AG to OS; R-9III to
PO; and R-5C to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 95-4-2-17 to date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-2-17
by The Pet Practice requesting waiver use approval to operate a
veterinary clinic in an existing building located on the Past side of
Middlebelt Road between Clarita and Pickford Avenues in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
14205
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received letters frons the Traffic Bureau of the Police
Department and the Fire Marshal's office stating their offices
have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a
letter fiom the Inspection Department stating the proposed
veterinary clinic will not create any deficiencies for this site.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Brian Henry: I am an attorney that was retained by Kevin Hart, the architect
who prepared the plans. Mr. Hart couldn't be here tonight
because he had two other hearings in other communities that he
had to attend so he asked me to summarize briefly his
presentation. With me is Dr. Ken Genova, who is a licensed
veterinarian with over 20 years experience. He is also the
Regional Vice President of the Pet Practice. For any of the
Planning Commission members that are not familiar with the Pet
Practice, I brought some written materials that would summarize
the operation. You probably want to ask questions of the doctor
as far as the actual operation. We also have a representative
of the Middlebelt Plaza Limited Partnership here with us this
evening, Mr. Mike Jerrod, and also the broker for the property,
Ms. Jennie Jacobs. They talked with the tenants of the center
and none of the tenants have any objections.
I will quickly go through the requirements of the ordinance and
what this use does. It is going to be a care only facility.
There will not be any boarding or keeping of animals. In cases
of severe illnesses, the Pet Practice maintains 24-hour emergency
centers so if there is significant treatment to be done, there is
a referral source right within the Pet Practice structure. At
all times there will be a full-time, duly-qualified veterinarian
on site. The hours of operation Monday through Friday are 7:30
a.m. until 7:00 p.m. , and on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00
p.m. There will not be any open or outdoor runways or kennels.
There will be no disposal or rubbish or litter, which is
inconsistent with Michigan statutes. The doctor can directly
address that but all the Pet Practice facilities comply fully
with the medical waste disposal act. The Laidlaw Company has
contacted the Pet Practice and will take care of the removal of
all refuse and waste materials. There won't be any decaying
matter stored on the premises, and the Pet Practice has taken
great strides to confine the noise, confusion and odor to the
premises.
The noise factor is addressed by brick walls, which are 12 inches
thick. The interior walls are insulated with R-32 high-density
insulation. If you look at the plan that was submitted, the
araaG where the animals are kept are in the back area of the
facility so the customer area will face out toward the shopping
center and is away from the animal areas.
14206
Confusion is limited in these facilities because of the standards
established by the national chain of Pet Practice. They are
highly-qualified veterinarians running the facility. Generally
there are approximately 20 animals kept at any given time so
there are not significant amount of confusion caused by a number
of animals making noi .
The type of animals generally treated in the Pet Practice
facilities are cats and dogs. Animals such as snakes, Vietnamese
pigs, those sorts of things are not generally types of animals
that are brought into this facility or giraffes or other types of
exotic pets. The average stay of an animal is six hours. That
is generally the type treatment that is given. There is a
grooming facility that is also part of the operation.
Odors are kept to a minimum because there are individual
drainings in each of the caged rooms. The cages are washed down
regularly. There is an attendant that is there full time
watching that area making sure the animals are comfortable,
making sure the animals are quiet and their needs are taken care,
and that person is responsible for washing down the area.
Soundproofing I have already addressed, but ventilation there are
three ten-ton rooftop HVAC mechanisms with another one to be
added. The facility will have its own filtration system so all
the air going out will have been filtered.
The Pet Practice has significant presence in Michigan. There are
currently 18 facilities. The Pet Practice purchased these
facilities from the Professional Veterinary Hospitals. Dr.
Genova was with the Professional Veterinary Hospitals. He has
now sold his practice to the Pet Practice as Regional Vice
President he has responsibility for the entire state of Michigan,
parts of Indiana and Ohio. As Regional Vice President he will
inspect this facility. He will be in charge of hiring staff. He
will have contracts with the professionals that are running this
operation. If anyone violates the standards or procedures set up
by the Pet Practice, Dr. Genova has recourse. It is more of a
disciplinary action. If you would like to ask any specific
questions of the doctor, he is here to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas: Our notes say the animal waste will be stored in closed
containers. What type of containers are these?
Dr. Genova: Animal waste will be stored in sealed plastic containers that
have bags inside them.
Mr. Alanskas: How long will it be stored before it is removed?
Dr. Genova: Often twice a day.
14207
Mr. Alanskas: At 1Past daily?
Dr. Genova: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: On your cell factor, you say you have a foot wide wall?
Dr. Genova: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: If you had 15 to 20 animals barking, haw much would you hear next
door even with that soundproofing?
Dr. Genova: We have three other locations that are in centers as this and
those locations you don't have a lot of penetration of noise
because there is also insulation in addition to the brick.
Mr. Alanskas: So it is very minor?
Dr. Genova: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: My last question is you say your attendants, what is the average
age of the attendants that work in your facilities?
Dr. Genova: There are different categories of attendants that are there. Our
average age is probably 20 to 23 years old.
Mr. Alanskas: Not below 20 years of age?
Dr. Genova: There are some that are high-school age that come in that work as
sr.► assistants that work in the kennel area but they are supervised
by the people that are licensed.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am pleased to see that according to this write up here that the
rooftop mechanical units will be concealed but I am going to make
a comment. I don't know if you have any ability to modify a
problem that I saw when I went out there. I almost couldn't get
through that alley with those dumpsters. Has any plans been made
by the owner of that building to screen those in?
Dr. Genova: The property manager is here.
Mike Jerrod, 3773 E. Ellsworth, Ann Arbor: We have never had an issue with the City
as far as screening them. If the dumpsters were left out in the
alley so there was no access or ingress through there, then we
would definitely contact our local waste removal company to make
sure that they are put back where they are supposed to be. Some
of them are in enclosed areas but some of them sit right up
against the wall that separates the shopping center from the
residential area.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize we have no regulations requesting these things but we
like to take these opportunities to try to make our town a little
more tidy, and that is why I am presenting this.
14208
Mr. Jerrod: I don't see any problem with that at all.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you screen those in?
`ti.. Mr. Jerrod: I believe we could. I would have to speak with the owners.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you please do that?
Mr. Jerrod: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I want to get two points straight in my mind. Do you or do you
not keep animals there overnight?
Dr. Genova: If an animal has a minor procedure that was done and the owner
requests that they pick it up the next day, yes they are kept
overnight. If we have an animal that is in there for major
medical problems, no we don't keep them there, and we don't keep
an attendant overnight.
Mr. LaPine: That was my next question, are there any attendants there
overnight?
Dr. Genova: No.
Mr. TaPine: When you close at 7:30 p.m. that is the end of the day, and
basically there would not be any animals left there overnight?
Dr. Genova: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I guess I am curious because this is the first time in the years
that I have been around that I have seen a kennel in conjunction
with a shopping center. Normally these hospitals are
freestanding buildings in most cases. I have never seen them in
a shopping center. I have no objection because of the way you
handle everything inside. One of the questions I had was what if
the dogs have to go outside to do their business but I understand
that is all taken care of inside. Do you have any other of these
operations in shopping centers?
Dr. Genova: Yes, we have three in Michigan; one in Canton, one in Fraser and
one in Ann Arbor.
Mr. LaPine: Have you had any problems with the tenants in the shopping
centers or anything like that?
Dr. Genova: No.
Mr. EngPhretson: Dr. Genova, I was concerned about the response that you gave to
the issue regarding noise. With a one-foot wall and various
insulation properties that you are installing, I would assume
that would have blocked all noise from escaping the building
and/or your neighbor to the south of the shopping center, but I
think you said it would absorb most of the noise.
14209
Dr. Genova: There is very minimal noise. If we were to have an animal that
for some reason there was some loud barking, you may hear it
outside. It is hard to say absolutes. When you are trained in
medicine you don't say absolutes. There would be very minimal
noise.
Mr. Henry: I had the same concern and I got the same response. If that is a
concern, the best thing would be to call some of the other
centers, and we could provide you with those names, because there
are other facilities that are in close proximity with other
tenants, and the property is going to be about the same.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate that. I wish we would have had that information in
advance because it is awfully hard to deal with the matter
tonight with that information lacking, but even just a little bit
of noise coming through on a continual basis, like if I hear a
dog in my neighborhood a block and a half away that just yips for
hours on end it becomes really annoying after a while, and if I
had a business located next door, I think it would drive me
eL dZy.
Dr. Genova: Again, we don't keep animals there only for a short term.
Mr. Engebretson: It appears to me that you are making a very, very substantial
investment in that building and I just can't imagine that you are
not dealing with that issue satisfactorily. Had you not
responded to the question the way you did, I don't think I would
have brought it up because I would have been convinced by the
drawings that that issue would have been mitigated. My concerns
basically were relative to odors and noise, and with respect to
odors, I understand everything is stored within the building, and
that the HVAC units on the rooftop have filters. Now the
question is, what do those filters accomplish? Do they screen
out all odors or will there be some odors escaping into the
neighborhood?
Dr. Genova: They are filters that will screen out 95% of any particular
matter of odors that are present. The air circulate about every
six minutes. One of the things that is frustrating for owners in
developing their practices, is odors. When a client walks in a
facility and it smells, they are not real confident of what is
going to happen. If they are standing outside and it smells,
they are not confident about what is going to happen, so the air
is very clean.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that and I am sure you are operating a very
professional operation. I guess I am principally concerned about
the neighbors here who may be subjected. Even if you live next
door to a bakery with wonderful odors of bread being baked, even
that could be troublesome over a long period of time. I guess
the question would be if this were approved and you were to go
there, and it turned out that HVAC units and filters were not
doing the job, would you be prepared to make a commitment here
tonight that you would do whatever is necessary to mitigate those
�► problems down the road?
14210
Dr. Genova: Yes.
Mr. Erigebretson: You are on the record now. These records tend to haunt people.
Mr. Morrow: Just one more question on this noise factor. This one-foot wall
augmented by, I think you said R-32, whose standard is that? Is
that a Livonia standard? Is that a Pet Practice standard?
Dr. Genova: That is the level we found that we could mitigate virtually all
the noise.
Mr. Morrow: So it was a Pet Practice thing. Would you say you are
substantially better than other veterinary clinics as it relates
to sound or about the same?
Dr. Genova: I don't go into other clinics listening for noise.
Mr. Morrow: That was determined by Pet Practice for what you need to live in
harmony with your neighbors?
Dr. Genova: Part of our mission is to make life better for everyone.
Mr. Ehgebretson: Dr. Genova, are you at liberty to tell us what kind of investment
is being made in leasehold improvements. It looks to be very,
very substantial.
Dr. Genova: Close to $200,000.
Mr. Henry: One thing I neglected to mention is there is a laundry facility
on site so all the surgical garments and other linens are cleaned
inside this facility.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-4-12-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-107-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 94-4-2-17 by The
Pet Practice requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary
clinic in an existing building located on the Past side of Middlebelt
Road between Clarita and Pickford Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 95-4-2-17 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the operation of the subject use shall not permit open or
outdoor runways for animals;
2) That the operation of the subject use shall not permit the
boarding of household pets except as is needed for the provision
of medical care for sick or diseased pets;
14211
3) That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be stored
in a freezer or other such closed container inside the building,
and such waste shall be removed from the site on a daily basis;
Lr.
4) That there shall be no outside walking of animals except as is
required by customers transporting pets to and from the building.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-2-19
by Stoyan's S afood & Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to
increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and
Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating their department has no objections to this proposal.
Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating due to
the addition(s) , increased occupant load and area, fire and life
safety can be increased by attention given to the following
items. 1. Occupancy required to be fully sprinkled. 2. Two
required exits from 2nd floor required to be 1 hr. fire rated
enclosure to the outside. 3. Should occupant load exceed 50 or
travel distance exceed 75', two remove exits from the basement
area are required. 4. Required exit(s) from basement area
required to be 1 hr. fire rated enclosure to the outside. 5. A 1
hr. fire rated shaft enclosure be provided for the exhaust of the
kitchen commercial hood and duct system. 6. The fire suppression
system for the kitchen commercial hood and duct system be
14212
designed and installed per U.L. 300 Standard. They close by
saying while being able to be addressed during the plan review
process, early attention of these items may be beneficial in the
final design to be submitted.
Mr. Mei: Is the petitioner present:
Salem Samaan, 9459 South Main, Plymouth: I am here representing the petitioner and
also the contractor, who will answer any questions that this body
may have. Basically, this is a request to increase the size and
floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant. We
are not only asking to increase but we are hoping to renovate
this project. We are going to put up basically another building,
adding to the existing building, putting a face lift on the
outside and the inside of this building. We would also be adding
all kinds of landscaping. The use will basically be the same.
It is not going to be changed. It will be a restaurant, the same
type of use that has been used.
Todd Felt, 2650 Penny: What we are proposing to do is add the same style to the
back portion. A brand new building is what we are building. We
are adding the back portion. We are coming out the front 18 feet
and putting two gables on the front.
Mr. McCann: Approximately how many square feet of additional area?
Mr. Felt: Approximately 4800 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: What is the current size?
Mr. Felt: Approximately 6000 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: The colors shown on the rendering, is that what you intend the
building to be?
Mr. Felt: Yes.
Mr. McCann: The addition, is that going to be shingled roof?
Mr. Felt: It is standing seam.
Mr. Alanskas: On your main floor, what is your capacity right now for seating?
Pete Stoyanovich, 6426 Highview, Dearborn Heights: Right now downstairs we have
approximately 110 seating capacity. In the comedy club we have
about 120 seats upstairs right now.
Mr. Alanskas: My question is for this new area you will be gaining 53 seats?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Approximately 50 to 55 seats all on the lower floor.
Mr. Piercecchi: When I went over to observe the site, I noticed you had a big
v..
14213
excavation going on, what is that? Is that assuming you are
going to get the go ahead?
`r.. Mr. Stoyanovich: We held a charity golf tournament yesterday.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed by the write up here prepared by the Planning
Department that you meet the landscaping requirements of up to
15%. Does this landscaping include anything along that long
wall?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes there is landscaping there.
Mr. Piercecchi: If you put evergreens along that wall, I would think you would be
more than 15%. Can anyone address that?
Mr. Felt: There is landscaping in the corners.
Mr. Piercecchi: Aren't you going to be bringing the parking closer to that area
than it is now?
Mr. Felt: Right.
Mr. Piercecchi: Don't you think you should have a screen there of some type of
evergreen to keep the lights and that away from the people behind
you? That is residential area.
Mr. Felt: Right now we have, I believe, about 20 feet to the parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: That back wall there, that is a long wall. You have a lot of
property there, and there is really nothing in front of that
wall. Is there any chance we could get that commitment to put
some evergreens there to block the noise out?
Mr. Felt: We are expanding the parking back to the wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is what I am talking about. Don't you think we need some
evergreens there?
Mr. Samaan: As far as commitments, the Stoyanovich family is planning to
spend in excess of one million dollars to renovate. If, in fact,
greenery back there would enhance the area, then it is something
that definitely will be looked into.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think it would enhance the area too if you got some resurfacing
in your parking lot.
Mr. Samaan: That is part of the plan. That whole parcel is going to be
redone.
Mr. Piercecchi: We can more or less get a commitment here that you will do some
more landscaping at that wall?
14214
Mr. Samaan: We will look into it and do whatever is needed.
Mr. Morrow: Along the same line, viewing your parking lot, is there space
available to put plantings or does that erode your parking
'` requirements?
Mr. Felt: That is what we have to look into.
Mr. Morrow: I guess that is where I was coming from, you will have to look at
it and see if you have space to do it.
Mrs. Blomberg: When I was out there Sunday I noticed that the big hole just had
caution tape around it. I was wondering if it would be possible
to put up some construction mesh?
Mr. Felt: There is a fence around it.
Mr. TaPine: Is the overall operation of the restaurant as it now exists going
to change? The Comedy Club is going to stay? Is the new area
going to become a sportsman bar or something of that nature?
What is really going to change?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Basically what we are going to do is upgrade the restaurant.
Over the last 20 years the restaurant hasn't been touched. I am
trying to throw the family name out moreso even now with my
current position, and being from this area. It is not going to
be a sports bar. Our intention is to upgrade the cuisine, the
restaurant aspect of it. We are going to add a little more bar
space into the restaurant with the expansion but our theme is
`rw basically a fine cuisine, a restaurant.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Steven Hall, 35923 Elmira: I live exactly right behind Stoyan's Restaurant. I am
against the plan as it stands right now. I have some major
concerns, and one of them was addressed, and that is with
providing a screen along that wall. We live right behind there
and with the extra capacity, with people parking in there, we are
afraid there are going to be more people parking against that
wall, and therefore we will hear more people. It hasn't been a
problem to date because people only park about half way to the
back of the parking lot. If they park right next to the wall, we
will hear them. We would like to see that there would be some
evergreens put along that wall and possibly if there is a problem
consuming your parking, there is an easement or right-of-way on
the other side of the wall next to Elmira. Maybe it would be
possible for them to put the trees there. I don't know what the
policy is with that. We have another concern of location of the
dumpster. In fact I was reading the notes of the City Engineer
and he noted concerns with the dumpster. It is about 185 feet
from the building. It is right next to the wall. Every Monday
14215
morning we hear them come in and dump that dumpster. We would
like to see that moved. There have been times when I could smell
the dumpster too. I went around to the different restaurants in
this area, and most of them have the dumpster right next to the
`%11. building, probably for the convenience of their employees to take
the trash out. I know it is not unreasonable to ask that it be
next to the building. I have another concern. There is on the
plans a garden area. It looks like a patio to me. I am
concerned that they may have some exterior seating. I am afraid
they could have exterior seating with music piped outside. We
definitely would be able to hear that from our area. It is
called a garden so I don't know if they are going to have
seating. I would like to see something set up where there is no
possibility where the patrons can congregate outside the area and
create a lot of noise for the residents. My last concern is
unfortunately for these folks, I overheard someone talking back
by the wall and they were mentioning the sewer and one of them
had mentioned that the sewer is on our side of the road and it
should have been on the other side of the road. My concern was
if they dig up my lawn, will it be restored back to its original
condition? I would like to see that this issue be tabled until
they can come up with some definite plans as to what they are
going to do with the screening and these other issues that have
been coming up.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go back to the petitioner. You have the last
chance and there are certain things I would like for you to
answer, but first John, how high is the wall back there?
'�•► Mr. Nagy: About five feet.
Mr. McCann: You have listened to the concerns of the neighbor which would
seem to be valid. Can you address some of them for us?
Mr. Felt: We moved the dumpster back here because next door there are two
dumpsters along the same wall and we are trying to conform to
what what going on already. We have space for the dumpster here
if we have to but we would rather have the dumpster in the back.
Mr. McCann: It is in an enclosed wall?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes. There is a wall that is made up back there.
Mr. McCann: I was concerned about compounding the problem.
Mr. Felt: Screening is in the budget. We have no choice there if that is
an issue.
Mr. McCann: That is one of the possibilities.
Mr. Felt: We could put it on the far side of the fence between the road and
the wall.
14216
Mr. Nagy: That is acceptable.
Mr. McCann: Would you commit to doing that?
`"` Mr. Nagy: We did ask for a call-back on the landscape plan. We expected
the landscape plan could be enhanced to show additional planting
was needed in that area south of the existing wall.
Mr. McCann: So we will bring that back. The sewer problem, can you explain
that?
Mr. Stoyanovich: The sewer is on the far side of the street. We built the
existing homes, as a matter of fact our family owns two of those
homes, and we did put the sewer system in. We would have to go
on the other side.
Mr. Engebretson: I am concerned about that dumpster. What goes in the dumpster?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Food waste and that is about it.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it would be better to have that dumpster more in the
proximity of your building where if it became a problem with
odors, you would be aware of it and could take care of it.
Mr. Stoyanovich: We have room for that there.
Mr. Lapin: I am looking at the plans here. The gentleman brought up a
question regarding the patio. Are you going to have outside
tables there. Can you explain what that is going to be?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Right now we plan for a patio on the back of the restaurant. At
this time, depending on our seating capacity, right now we are
fairly close to it. We might add a couple of additional tables
for outdoor dining only in the summertime. That would only be
used for the summer months. You are talking probably four months
out of the year. As far as the noise factor is concerned, there
is not going to be any loud music on the patio. The music is
basically going to be in the restaurant with possibly some soft
background music that might overflow into the patio area. Once
again, it will only be used four months out of the year.
Mr. LaPine: Then that would increase the seating capacity during those
months.
Mr. Stoyanovich: We have already included the tables on the patio.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be a roof over the patio?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Right now we don't have in the plans a screen over the patio. We
want it to be an open patio. If we have to enclose it, we can
always enclose it with a screen.
14217
Mr. LaPine: You did commit that there wouldn't be any loud music there?
Mr. Stoyanovich: Absolutely.
Mr. Felt: The screening with the evergreens would help. You wouldn't hear
the customers talking.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have valet parking here? I am trying to
alleviate some of the residents' concerns.
Mr. Stoyanovich: There is not going to be valet parking here.
Mr. IaPine: Normally anyone that drives is going to take the closest place to
the building.
Mr. Hall: I did read the City Engineer's notes, and in his notes he stated
that he was told there would not be seating in this garden area.
I wonder what the reason is for the difference now. I would
like to make one other statement. We have immediate neighbors
that share our same concerns and when I spoke to them, their
feeling was since the excavation was already started, there was
nothing we could do about that. I want to express that that type
of thing sends out a signal to the residents and unfortunately
the wrong signal at this time.
Mr. McCann: That is why we are here tonight to try to work out these problems
if we can, and to determine if this is in the best interest of
the City. They cannot go forward to get their building permit
without it.
Mr. Morrow: What time do the dumpsters pick up at this facility?
Mr. Hall: Monday mornings about 7:00 a.m.
Mr. Morrow: Do you have any control over when the dumpsters can be picked
up?
Mr. Felt: We are going to come up by the building.
Bobby Stoyanovich: I am also involved with the restaurant. As far as the dumpster
issue, when we went to talk to them, they asked for that since
there are only houses on one side of the road and the LA Plaza
next door has their dumpsters there. When I went and submitted a
plan for the wall, I did at that time submit also when I was
building the homes, to make it better for the residential homes,
that the dumpsters would be there and the departments that did
process them felt that would be fine at that time because the
houses were on one side of the road.
Mr. Morrow: I think Mr. Engebretson had some concerns about the owners, but
that has been addressed. My concern is regardless of where you
put them, if they stay at the wall or move closer, I think the
14218
biggest problem is the time being picked up. Generally the
customers have some say so if they could be picked up at some
time during the day when the neighbors are not just waking up or
sleeping.
Mr. Stoyanovich: Right now our dumpsters are being picked up mid-day.
Mr. Engebretson: Our notes indicate that the garden patio will not be utilized for
seating. I don't know where that came from. Obviously, during
the course of filing this petition, the staff was advised it was
not your intention to put seats there, and back to Mr. Alanskas'
comments earlier, it sounds like you are adding a lot of space to
gain about 48 seats, which is 12 tables. You could get 12 tables
on that patio it looks like.
Mr. Stoyanovich: If we do have the capacity to allow for tables on that patio, it
would only be four tables that were submitted that we came up
with right now. We are planning to put on that patio a water
fountain that would be used only during the summer months, and
basically the patio is nothing more than a waiting area for
people to wait while they are going to be seated indoors, or if
they just want to take a drink outdoors. In the back of the
restaurant there are french doors that gives you that capacity to
go out and relax outdoors.
Mr. Engebretson: The only reason I brought it up, there seems to be a conflict as
to whether or not there will be seating there.
Mr. Stoyanovich: I just flew into town last week so I don't know when that came
up. It might have been a misunderstanding somewhere.
Mr. Engebretson: If there are to be four tables outside then that takes away from
the seating inside.
Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: You aren't going to just add four tables?
Mr. Stoyanovich: No sir.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is that your understanding?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-5-2-19
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-108-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-2-19 by
14219
Stoyan's Seafood & Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to
increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and
Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning
Now. Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
95-5-2-19 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 6-8-95, prepared by TAF
Construction/Todd Alan Felt, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevations dated 6-8-95, prepared by TAF
Construction/'Ibdd Alan Felt, including the wall signage depicted
thereon, subject to variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
an excessive number of signs, which are hereby approved shall be
adhered to; and
3) That a fully developed landscape plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of
the date of this resolution.
4) That the dumpster shall be relocated adjacent to the building.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
`1.. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-2-20
by Incredible Universe requesting waiver use approval to operate a
full service restaurant (McDonald's) within a proposed building to be
located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven and Eight
Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
F...
14220
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the
operation of a full service restaurant within the proposed
`ow. Incredible Universe will not create any deficiencies for this
site nor will it change the parking requirements. Also in our
file are letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic
Bureau stating their offices have no objection to this proposal.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward
Bryan Spain, Director of Real Estate for Tandy Corporation: I have with me tonight
Gary Risler our Senior Project Manager who has in fact built all
our Incredible Universe stores. He and I will be here to answer
any questions for you. I will keep my comments very brief. We
have, in fact, presented to you previously the Incredible
Universe operation. Within the retail area we are proposing to
put in a McDonalds. For clarification it is referred to as a
full-service restaurant. It is actually a McDonalds Express.
They have a limited menu and it would only operate during the
operational hours of our store. There is no carry-out nor
carry-on the premises. We ask that our guests not carry any food
outside the premises of the McDonalds' area, which incorporates
approximately 2800 to 3000 sq. ft. We are requesting a variance
from the 30-seat capacity to 88 seats, which, as you can tell in
this area, we actually have it petitioned off by a ribbon within
the store, and guests enter through this area, come to the
counter and then eat along here. It is merely done as a
convenience like Hudsons Department Store here has a dining area
`�• I believe. Our customers tend to spend a good deal of time
browsing the store and as a result they do want refreshments and
that is why we have the McDonalds operation. I have Mr. Wisler,
the Project Manager, with me and we will be glad to answer any
questions you might have.
Mrs. Blomberg: I just want to make sure we know what we are talking about. We
aren't going to have any outside sign for McDonalds?
Mr. Spain: Completely internal.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Ray Tent, 18051 Deering: I have been a resident here for 39 years. I have been
very much involved with many of the things that have happened
here in the City so I want to speak out on this. I could have
watched this on television but you know I couldn't talk back. My
notes are brief. I know the hour is late and I know what you are
putting up with up here. You have a lot of items on the agenda.
I will be real quick. The Incredible Universe, I guess I
couldn't have picked a better name than "Promise them anything
but give them Arpege". That is exactly what happened in this
14221
case. This concerns me. I am very disappointed and sorry for
the residents in this area. The Victor Park Master Plan has been
violated and prostituted. I say that honestly. That is our
Nom. golden corridor, what we built our City on, and what are we
doing? We are giving it away to a warehouse, and not only that,
guess what this warehouse is doing next. They want a fast-food
restaurant. We wanted some classy restaurants in there.
Something that would be great. What are we going to get next? A
flea market? David Johnson owns a lot of land there, and I feel
as soon as he dumps this property, he is going back to Petoskey
and we are stuck. Maybe we will have a flea market there next.
Why not, because all the buying will be done inside the building.
Can you imagine a big warehouse in this area. I just don't
understand it, and now we have a McDonalds. Let's not play games
with this. This is serious business. We have a good City. It
was voted the eighth best to place to raise children. We have
everything here that is nice. Did we protect that property out
there? We certainly did, but what happened we gave it away. I
am so disappointed that we did because we fought real hard for
it. That is a good piece of land so now what I am suggesting is
we have added insult to injury. We not only approved the
warehouse but now the people have come back and they want a
McDonalds Restaurant. That is where the insult comes in to the
injury. We were injured already. In fact, they are not even
here right now. They gave up. How can we fight City Hall? How
can we fight planning, which we considered very good in the City?
We can't because this is going to go all the way through Council.
It is the end of the ball game. Flea markets will be coming in.
`'` What I am asking and suggesting is not going to make any
difference, table this thing until after the election. If you
table it until after the election, the election is in November.
Let us get a new Council. Let us get a new Mayor. This can be
revisited. The whole project can. Remember what happened at
Newburgh and Seven Mile next to Brose. That had been denied
because of all the objections and then after the election it was
revisited and they approved, so it is not all over until the "Fat
Lady Sings" and the fat lady hasn't sung. I would say in this
case table it. Don't deny it. If you deny it, it will go
through. If we table it, it will take a little more effort.
Mr. Engebretson: Why is it so troubling to you that there be a McDonalds in that
store so you could have a McDonalds while you are shopping in
that store?
Mr. Tent: Because we could have had some restaurants there. Remember
"Promise them anything but give them Arpege". What did they
promise you people. They promised you they were going to bring
in a full-scale restaurant in that particular area. When they
came in to seek their C-2 zoning it was on the pretense they were
going to put a restaurant in. They got the C-2 zoning. After
they got the zoning they changed their mind and said we are going
to give you a warehouse. That is all it is ladies and gentlemen,
it is a warehouse. Now they are going to rub your nose in it and
,om, give you a McDonalds.
Mr. Engebretson: I am wondering if you have ever visited an Incredible Universe
store as a basis for your comments?
14222
Mr. Tent: All I heard was one of the Council ladies say how wonderful and
beautiful and big the thing is and this is what we need in the
City. We have a Fretter's warehouse that is going begging with
the truck wells. They could use that. Why do they want to bring
`"' it into that area. There is nothing wrong with this operation
but not there. That is big. That is awfully big. Remember the
Duke property how we fought that. They wanted offices out by
Schoolcraft. There was no need for it. Now they come up with
the fact we do have a need for office buildings.
Mr. Spain: I would like to address the fact I do regret the gentleman feels
we are a warehouse. Quite the contrary. We are a very exciting
operation. I would like to bring out the fact we do in fact have
a restaurant going on that site with us, the Lonestar Cafe. We
worked out the particulars with them today. The restaurant he is
looking for will be there.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tent, what they are asking for is nothing out of the
ordinary. Most of your businesses, like Kmart, has eating
facilities for their customers. It is nothing they are asking
for that is out of the ordinary.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-5-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#6-109-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-2-20 by
`r. Incredible Universe requesting waiver use approval to operate a full
service restaurant (McDonald's) within a proposed building to be
located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven and Eight
Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
95-5-2-20 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of
customer seats of not to exceed a total of 76 for the following
reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the main use of the
subject building.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
14223
Mr. Engebretson: I am really concerned about the denigrating terms that were used
to describe this facility. I have visited an Incredible Universe
in Columbus Ohio and it is a store that I think will be most
welcome in Livonia. I think the McDonalds Restaurant within that
'" facility will be a convenience for their customers. I went to
Kmart today to take a prescription there, and while there found
it convenient to have a pizza and a coke while waiting for my
prescription. I can envision similar kinds of things as we have
at Jacobson and Hudsons. As Mr. Alanskas pointed out this is
nothing unusual to have an ancillary use like this in a major
department store, and Incredible Universe, in my mind, is far
from a warehouse. It is a department store dealing with
electronic devices so I think that is entirely out of order. I
am sorry Mr. Tent feels the way he does but I certainly do not
want to end this meeting tonight with people thinking that we are
dealing with a warehouse or a flea market here. It is far from
it. I think it will be a great asset to our City.
Mr. LaPine: In all due respect to our Chairman, I disagree with him. I think
a mistake was made when the property was zoned to C-2. I have
nothing against Incredible Universe. I don't think that is the
right location for it. I don't think we are doing the citizens
of Livonia any favors, therefore, I am going to be voting against
this proposal.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: TaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Parkside Estates proposed to be located north of Ann
Arbor Trail between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter frau the Parks and Recreation
Commission stating their have no problems or discrepancies with
the plan as submitted. We have also received letters from the
Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating their
departments have no objections to this development.
Also in our file is a letter fLum the Engineering Department
stating the following comments are offered relative to this
proposal. 1. A passing lane will be required on the south side
of Ann Arbor Trail opposite the proposed street intersection.
...
14224
The City of Westland will become involved in the review of the
proposed intersection as well as the above passing lane. 2. The
storm sewer outlet for the site will be the Middle Rouge River
within the Hines Park area north of the subdivision. This outlet
`ft. will require the approval of the Wayne County. The above agency
may require that an on-site sedimentation/detention pond be
constructed. 3. The proposed street name of "Parkside Court"
should be reviewed by the Public Safety Department as it relates
to any ambiguity with other street names in the City. 4. A water
main loop will be required to interconnect the two existing
dead-end water mains in Ann Arbor Trail adjacent to the proposed
subdivision. This office has no objections to the proposed plat
subject to the above comments.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is a 20 home subdivision, with concrete
streets. The homes will run between $175,000 to $200,000. They
would have three to four bedrooms, one and two-story homes. I
will answer any questions.
Mr. Morrow: That is a nice start in that area. Maybe the whole area will now
go to a subdivision. Has your subdivision caused any interest as
far as people interested in buying in there?
Mr. Soave: I've had a lot of inquiries.
Mr. Morrow: So the activity is there. I think it is very nice.
``. There was no on else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
NfcCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval
for Parkside Estates closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-110-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June
13, 1995 on Preliminary Plat approval for Parkside Estates proposed to
be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark Road and Farmington
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat
for Parkside Estates be approved subject to the waiving of the open
space requirement set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
and to the submittal of a plan for a subdivision entrance marker and a
landscape plan for the required greenbelt to be constructed on Lot #2
to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to submittal of the
Final Plat for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations;
14225
2) That no reporting City department has objected to the approval of
the Preliminary Plat; and
`*141. 3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the subject land area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in t
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices ha
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Departmen
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 703rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on May 9,
1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#6-111-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 703rd Regular Meeting & Public
Hearing held on May 9, 1995 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. W Cann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 373rd Special Meeting held on May 16, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#6-112-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 373rd Special Meeting held on May
16, 1995 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Blomberg
ABSENT: None
14226
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
'+■� minutes of the 704th Regular Meeting held on May 23, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-113-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 704th Regular Meeting held on May
23, 1995 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Schostak Brothers & Company, on behalf of Burger King,
requesting approval for a ground sign for the restaurant located at
29211 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This is the Burger King that is located on the south side of
Seven Mile just east of Middlebelt. They have an existing pole
sign on their site, which is 28 feet high, 119 sq. ft. of sign.
They are proposing to change that by lowering the sign 23 feet
and making the sign area only 98 sq. ft. The pole sign is still
non-conforming and because of that they had to go to the Zoning
Board to get approved. They did get a variance for that so based
on that variance the sign before you is conforming.
`+r.. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight?
Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I represent King Venture
East and Burger Kings. King Venture East is a company owned by
the Schostak family. We purchased approximately 24 corporate
Burger King stores and as part of that purchase we have gone
through and increased the operation both by the employees, by the
method of operation drive-thru and signage. The intent of the
signage was to do a couple of things. One was to improve the
visibility of all of our stores as well as reader boards where
possible. The purpose of the reader board is two-fold, one
allows for marketing of the corporate advertisement and specials,
and two King Venture also goes into the community and offers fund
raisers through the use of joint sales. Basically what that
means is for select hours of the day, normally 4 to 6, 3 to 7,
some two to three hour period, Burger King will pick or select an
organization within the City, such as the Boy Scouts,
Clarenceville High School, etc. and donate 10% of all the
proceeds from sales between those selected hours. This
particular store is the one to do the advertising, to be a
corporate citizen and work with the organizations, as well as to
assist the visibility of that particular store because of the
adjacent building with the zero front yard setback, and by giving
a little more exposure
14227
as a result of its proximity to Livonia Mall. This store
experiences some more out-of-the area traffic, which is probably
10% to 30% more than a normal drive-thru would experience.
`. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Polsinelli, on this message board sign, is this to supplement
some of the window advertising that we see in Burger Kings or
fast-food type of places, or will this perhaps do away with some
of the window signage?
Mr. Polsinelli: It takes the place, in this particular store, of window signs
which virtually do nothing because they can't be seen. The
intent is to get those specials out.
Mr. Morrow: I think it is a tremendous step forward.
Mr. Polsinelli: If I may add as well, one of the conditions I think we agreed to
was that this reader board will not display "help wanted".
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-114-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Schostak Brothers &
Company, on behalf of Burger King, requesting approval for a ground
sign for the restaurant located at 29211 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, be approved subject to the following
condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Schostak Brothers & Company, received by
`.. the Planning Commission on May 16, 1995, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
as well as subject to the following additional condition required by
the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) That messages referring to employment, such as "Now Hiring" or
"Applications Now Being Accepted" will not be permitted on the
reader board.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Savanna Reptile requesting approval for one wall sign
for the commercial building located at 19046 Middlebelt Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Middlebelt just
south of Seven Mile Road. At one time it was a two-unit building
but I guess Savanna Reptile took over the whole building. For
that reason they want an awning sign along the whole front of the
building with their signage on the awning. They are allowed 50
14228
sq. ft of wall signage. They are proposing 28 sq. ft. so they
are well below what they are permitted. They are also aware that
on the awning only the sign area will be backlit.
err. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Dave Fitzgerald, 19139 Inkster, Livonia: We want to put this canopy up here. This
part in the center will be illuminated. There are two businesses
we want to tie into one. There is a 75 foot setback. You can't
see these people right now.
Mr. Morrow: When we were out there to look at it, we noticed on the one wall
where the repair place used to be, there seems to be like a ghost
in the facade there. Do you know if the owner intends to paint
the wall or do something to get rid of the letters that seem to
be attached to the wall.
Mr. Fitzgerald: The first rendering I submitted showed an awning fabric covering
them up. We did another drawing.
Mr. Morrow: Are you going to paint it?
Mr. Fitzgerald: I don't know what they are going to do but I can suggest it.
Mr. Morrow: Would you take that message back. It is almost like another sign
on the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to take out that bright green in the middle and are
you going to make the stripes smaller?
Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. This will be the only part illuminated.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-115-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Savanna Reptile
requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building
located at 19046 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package, excluding the color rendering, by Classic
Canopy, Inc. , received by the Planning Commission on May 22,
1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Color Rendering by Classic Canopy, Inc. , received by the
Planning Commission on June 6, 1995, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
3) That only the approved 28 sq. ft. of sign area of the awning is
to be illuminated.
14229
4) That the west facing wall shall be either cleaned or repainted to
remove the appearance of the former wall sign lettering.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
application by Marygrove Awning Company, on behalf of Spartan Tire,
requesting approval for two wall signs for the commercial building
located at 29070 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Haller and Camden. They are proposing two walls signs
and they are allowed one wall sign at 80 sq. ft. The two wall
signs equal 145 sq. ft. so they are over what they are allowed so
they had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance, which they
have done and this is what the ZBA has approved so based on this
variance they have a conforming sign.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present?
Andrew O'Neil, 36140 Parkdale: Basically what we are trying to do is erect an
awning to cover the front face of the building and along the side
of the building and give them some visibility. He is in an area
there that is smothered with same very, very large signs. He has
had some unsuccessful attempts in the building next door, and he
thought if he moved a little further away from Firestone, which
he did, and if he could be accommodated by a nice decorative
canopy, which he feels will enhance the building. I submitted a
'4111. picture of the building. We are basically just trying to enhance
the area of the building, give it some kind of bright and
cheeriness about it, something to give it some recognition
because it is a very hard building to see. Most people, even one
of the inspectors went there to look at it and drove right by the
building basically because there are so many large signs in the
area that catch the public eye in comparison to what is going on
in his facility.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, are you with Marygrove Awning or Spartan Tire?
Mr. O'Neil: I am with Marygrove Awning.
Mr. Alanskas: This picture is very nice but are they planning on putting in
this greenery here at the bottam, or is that just your drawing?
Mr. O'Neil: I think that was just part of the drawing.
Mr. Alanskas: I think it is a good idea. Take that back to them.
Mr. O'Neil: I don't think he would have a problem with it.
Mr. Alanskas: There is hardly anything there.
v..
14230
Mr. McCann: For the record Mr. Nagy you are including the "S's" that are part
of the logo part of the signage, other than that he would be in
compliance?
Mr. Nagy: That is right. The computation includes the running S's. I
guess he could make the point whether it is or isn't a sign but
it was included.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-116-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Marygrove Awning
Company, on behalf of Spartan Tire, requesting approval for two wall
signs for the commercial building located at 29070 Plymouth Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Marygrove Awning Company, received by
the Planning Commission on May 30, 1995, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
2) That the site of the Spartan Tire store will have added at the
base of the front building elevation the additional landscaping
as shown on the awning sign elevation plan.
as well as subject to the following additional condition required by
the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) That signage is to be constructed as presented, including a blue
background with white lettering and "S" design in red. Further,
only the white lettering is to be illuminated and will go off
prior to midnight.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
application by Marshall Furniture requesting approval for two wall
signs for the commercial building located at 28795 Plymouth Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Harrison and Garden. It is the former site of Hallmark
Furniture. They are proposing two wall signs, one is an awning
sign to run along the front of the building along Plymouth Road.
The awning will run along the entire front of the building and
wrap partially about 23 feet along the Past elevation. The front
part of the awning, which faces Plymouth Road, would have a
sign. This sign would be 69 sq. ft. and would read "Marshall
Furniture". On the east elevation right now there is a parapet
wall in the front of the building, which sticks up about four
14231
feet in height. He is proposing to add about 6 ft. 4 in. in
height to that for a total of 10 ft. 8 in. in height and add a
wall sign to the top of that parapet wall on both sides. Because
it is only 12 inches apart, the Zoning Board counted it as one
`111. sign, and we followed suit. So it is only one sign. this sign
would be 64 sq. ft in size so you are talking a total of two
signs, 133 sq. ft. The site is only allowed to have one wall
sign at 80 sq. ft. so they are over in signage. For that reason
they went to the Zoning Board and got a variance for the signage.
Based on that they are conforming in signage.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present? What is your reason for this request?
Marshall Saleh, 28795 Plymouth Road: The reason is I want to be in business.
Mr. McCann: You believe you need the extra signage. Is there anything else
you want to say?
Mr. Saleh: You can't see me coming from the east. I have to have some kind
of sign that people can see me. It is not ugly. It is
attractive. It is a big investment to me. I have another store
located in Wyandotte, which looks good. I wish I had pictures to
show you. It speaks for itself. I need the signage.
Mr. Piercecchi: The parapet wall, at first I thought that was out of order, but
basically it is the same as Lasky has.
Mr. Saleh: They have post signs.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with this gentleman. Coming east, because the building
that is attached to that is so long, it is very difficult to see
it. Going west it is no problem. Going east it is a problem.
Mr. Saleh: In that area there are a lot of closed stores. There was
Scandanavian Furniture there. They had a problem making it
there. One of the reasons that I was told by the manager that
operated the business at that time it was a Hallmark Furniture.
Lasky took over, the sign stayed. Lasky went out and
Scandinavian went in and they took down the post sign. They were
doing great business until after that sign came down. That is
what I was told. They went out. I decided to go in there. I
had a few dollars so I was going to invest in Livonia. I had no
idea I was going to run into this situation with the City of
Livonia being strict about signage because I never had that
problem. I had a location in Detroit which I closed down because
of crime. I went to Wyandotte. I had no problems there. I came
to Livonia. I am trying. I want to go in business and they need
me.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can speak only for myself in regards to signage, but when you
think of what we really want here in Livonia, we want the image
of Livonia to look fine. If you think of anything that is
rr..
14232
honkey-tonk it is when you go down a street and see all kinds of
neon signs, and we are doing everything in our power to stop
that.
'`". Mr. Saleh: I can appreciate that but I still need vision.
Mr. Piercecchi: What you have is obviously not objectionable to the Zoning Board
of Appeals because they granted it.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#6-117-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Marshall Furniture
requesting approval for two walls signs for the commercial building
located at 28795 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Sign Text, Inc. , received by the
Planning Commission on June 1, 1995, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to.
as well as subject to the following additional condition required by
the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) That in order to be considered as one sign only, the parapet
signs shall be no more than 24" apart and the height shall not
exceed 26' from ground level. In addition, only the parapet
signs are to be internally illuminated, and only the verbiage on
the awning sign shall be back-lit (there shall be no verbiage on
'44111. the easterly side of the awning);
2) The signage at the rear entrance and side awning from the
previous owner, Copenhagen Scandinavian Furniture, is to be
removed and no signage erected in its place;
3) As allowed by the sign ordinance, the interior window signage
shall be limited to 20% of the total glass area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Alanskas: I don't know if you are aware we have a Plymouth Road Development
Authority and we are trying to make Plymouth Road as nice as
possible and I think the sign you have here is a step in the
right direction. Good luck to you.
Mr. Engebretson: I like the sign too. The one in front. I am concerned about the
one on top of the building, but I will support the motion giving
the benefit of the doubt to the wisdom of the Zoning Board of
14233
Appeals, but I am really concerned about setting a precedent to
see who can build the tallest and put the largest sign on top of
the building. I would have hoped there would have been a better
way to solve that problem. I want you to succeed and since you
are so convinced this sign is going to do the trick, I want to
give you the benefit of the doubt too, and I wish you success.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, this comes within the new ordinance for 20% of window
space?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 705th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on June 13, 1995 was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
CITY PLANNING CESSION
'7N1- `)\"-}cIAN6•(-67
l2 -Lee Morrow, Secretary
ATTEST: q(, `
6(V-4
Jack Fngebretso , Chairman
jg