HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-06-27 14234
MINUTES OF THE 706th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 27, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 706th Regular Meeting 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.
Members present: Jack EngP.retson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William LaPine
Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Messrs. H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were
also present.
Mr. Engehretson 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 95-5-1-11
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: This was tabled at our last meeting so procedurally we need a
motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-118-95 RESOLVED that, 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, be
taken from the table.
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
`rr
14235
Mr. Engebretson: This issue was tabled to gather additional information to have
more time to evaluate the proposal and the impact it would have
on the neighboring residents and the area in general. We
*ordiscussed this at our last study meeting. A couple of the
residents were there. The petitioner was there. With that I
will ask H if there is anything new in the files.
Mr. Shane: We have received some additional correspondence. First of all,
we received a total of 15 telephone calls in opposition to the
change in zoning. Then we have a letter dated June 23, 1995 from
Katherine L. Zink of 39006 Stacey Drive, which reads as follows:
In reference to the above petition number, we would like to voice
our very strong opposition to the proposed development. The
traffic situation at 6 Mile and Quakertown Lane during the
afternoon rush (4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. ) is horrendous now. The
proposed construction would make a bad situation much worse. It
presently takes 10 to 15 minutes to make a right turn onto 6 Mile
at 5:00 on a weekday. Lefthand turns are nearly impossible.
Also, we question the need for this type of development at this
location. Are you not trying to find tenants for the Victor Park
Development? This is only one mile away from that location. Why
not fill Victor Park first before beginning construction at a new
location that would inconvenience so many more people?
When we purchased our home in 1985, the only construction at the
6 Mile and Haggerty intersection were the homes in Quakertown.
�. We were pleased to be away from all of the congestion and this
was a major factor in our decision to purchase in Livonia;
however, since that time, we have seen five office buildings go
up, of which one has already expanded, plus a gas station - and
this is only on the Livonia side of Haggerty! This does not even
include the Laurel Park Mall, which adds to the traffic
congestion.
It is our deepest hope that the Planning Commission will see that
this is not the proper time or location for this type of
development.
That is the end of our new correspondence.
Mr. Engehretson: Would the petitioner paPasea come forward and tell us how you may
have addressed several of the issues that arose at our last
meeting.
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I do represent the petitioner, J-P
Properties. We recognize that the Planning Commission has
already seen this proposal several times at the public hearing
and also at the study session, so I don't intend to go over it in
detail but I just want to refresh your memory. (Mr. Tangora
pointed out on the plan what the petitioner was proposing). We
14236
have four different parcels that are grouped together for the
rezoning. The petitioner proposes to develop this one area with
a hotel, an extended-stay type of hotel, which is new in the
Now. area. There will be an office building, which would be a
signature building for some type of office neer. There would be
expressway visibility. The two parcels they are requesting to be
rezoned to C-2, which we all know is commercial, and their
proposal is they would like to locate a top-class restaurant in
both of the locations, if and when they are available. We have
some renderings of the hotel. (He passed the pictures out to the
Commissioners and homeowners in the audience).
We recognize that the key issue here is one of traffic. Of
course, I have been around on many of these rezoning proposals.
Traffic comes up every time. I remember when Quakertown went in
there I was involved with the rezoning of the property. At that
time we did the Blain proposal and worked with Quakertown. In
fact, we had their consent and cooperation when we built that
building along Six Mile Road, Also, the Northwest facility that
backs up to the subdivision.
We feel this particular proposal has certain advantages, if I am
allowed to say there are advantages, to the people in Quakertown.
We have three different types of uses here; one is an office, one
is a hotel use and one is commercial use. I think we can
recognize the uses of those particular rezoning parcels and
eventually the completed buildings would be used at different
times of the day. The office, as people over in Quakertown know,
the traffic starts at 7:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. There is high
intense traffic in the evening from 4:00 p.m. on. We have only a
portion of the property that would be utilized for that purpose.
The one hotel use is different. Hotel usage is throughout the
day. It is an extended-stay hotel so the traffic is in and out
on a daily basis. It is not like a typical hotel like the
Marriott or the flnbassy Suites. People come and stay for a week,
two weeks, whatever their business requires, and then when they
leave, they usually leave in the morning, and are coming in later
on in the day, not particularly at the time when the office usage
is most intense.
Finally, the restaurant sites there. I think we all recognize
from the different restaurants that have gone in the area that
usage starts at 11:30 a.m. over the lunch period and then again
in the evening it starts about 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. with more
intensity as the hours go on.
I don't think we have a great impact on the traffic flow on a
consolidated hourly basis. I think it is spread out over the
day. Of course we recognize that it increases traffic, but
14237
unfortunately for the residents in the area they are going to
experience an increase in traffic. We all know what is happening
in Northville 'Ibwnship. That doesn't seem to be any surprise.
tams. Eventually it is going to impact on the Six Mile Road and I-275
interchange there at Six Mile Road sometime in the near future.
We feel this is not a tremendous impact although we recognize
that it does increase the traffic, but we think it increases
traffic throughout the day, and it will not be as noticeable.
I think one of the things I have noticed in being over there, and
I do go over there quite often for business purposes, is that
there is a problem that the Quakertown people have in getting in
and out of their subdivision especially at the peak periods. I
think the City should study the possibility of having a traffic
signal at that particular location where Quakertown traffic comes
out on Six Mile Road. This ties in with our ingress and egress
that we are proposing. We are proposing to use only the Fox
Creek ingress, and not any other ingress along Six Mile Road, so
we are not adding to the ingress at all. The Fox Creek ingress
is used presently for the senior citizens, although not very
intensely, but belongs to Schoolcraft College. We have discussed
this with Schoolcraft College. Dr. McDowell has given us his
full cooperation allowing us to use it. We can improve it if we
would like and it meets his approval, and use that for all the
ingress and egress throughout the charter development for the
hotel, the office, and the two restaurant sites.
I don't want to go on too long, and I know you have some
questions, so I would like to stop and open it up for questions
N"'' if you would like to direct any to us.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question. The gentleman from J-P Properties said in
regards to the two restaurants, one was going to be a high-usage,
and they said they wanted the first one to be the type that would
serve breakfast to the hotel in the morning, unless I heard that
wrong. So it would be that way rather than two major
restaurants. Is that correct?
Dave Phipps, J-P Properties: I did say that we would be using a family style
system as a support to the hotel and the office.
Mr. LaPine: What Mr. Tangora said was the restaurants would open at eleven
o'clock and probably one would open at six o'clock. Is that
correct?
Mr. Phipps: The family restaurant would be open earlier.
Mr. LaPine: The other question we had at the time is the fact that some of
the members of the Commission had a problem with Fox Road in that
it is the only road in and out of the school complex. If there
was an accident on Six Mile Road right in front of this
establishment and someone needed help right away, we wouldn't
14238
have any other entrance or exit to get out of that place. We
asked you to go back to Schoolcraft College to find out if there
was any possibility we could get an exit from there out to
Haggerty Road. Did you make any progress on that?
Mr. Tangora: I can answer that because I am the one that approached Dr.
McDowell. Although he said he had no objection for us to use Fox
Creek as it has been developed along our property, that because
of the unknown nature of what they are going to do with that
Schoolcraft property at this time, he didn't think that was a
possibility for us to utilize this land for an exit.
Mr. TaPine: It was an impossibility?
Mr. Tangora: At this time they would not consider it.
Mr. LaPine: Do you intend to widen that road to a 60 foot road?
Mr. Tangora: The easement is a 40 foot easement right now. The road is 24
feet, which is a two-lane road. They talked about having a
boulevard entrance up on Six Mile Road, which would make it nicer
looking. I am not sure if they can get it within the 40 foot
easement or not. They can get a boulevard within the 40 foot
easement. I think you are talking about 60 feet, and that is
what the City would want for a dedication of a road. At this
point in time I don't think there is any thought of dedicating
Fox Creek that dead ends, to the City for a street.
Mr. LaPine: With that, let me just say that really creates a problem for me
*•.y because with the road the width it is now, I was out there
Saturday with the Chairman, and with traffic coming and going, if
we needed some emergency vehicles to get through there, that
narrow a road with these two buildings plus the restaurants,
creates a real problem in my mind. Unless there is some way we
can widen that road or get an exit out to Haggerty, I think it is
not a very smart move.
Mr. Tangora: Let me just say again, the 40 foot easement belongs to
Schoolcraft College, and if we all felt there was a need to widen
the road to three-lanes, it can be done within that 40 foot
easement. We are certainly amenable to that. Anything we have
to do on the road, we have to go back to Schoolcraft College but
Dr. McDowell told me he certainly supports the petition, and will
cooperate in any way, and will allow us to use the road and
improve it in any way we like. I think the possibility of
widening the road is not an impossibility.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Tangora, we keep mentioning restaurants here but they are
really besides the point. The point is do we rezone that lower
section from what it is to C-2 and if we rezone it into C-2,
there are a lot of permitted uses other than restaurants, which
means you still have to come back to us for restaurants, but you
14239
know bowling alleys could go in there, and many other big
establishments could go in there, and that road situation is very
important. Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion on restaurants
here is really immaterial to our work tonight. I would frankly
like to see the top half zoned in the C-4 for your hotel and the
other R-9 to the professional office building and settle for that
part, and when that is developed come back in and we will discuss
the rest.
Mr. Tangora: I appreciate your thoughts on that. Let me give you some of the
benefit, I have been around here and represented petitioners for
a number of years, and I would much prefer to come on a rezoning
petition and not tell you what we are going to do with it, but
recognizing when we come before the City Planning Commission and
the City Council, even though it is not timely to discuss the
uses, everybody still wants to know. That is why we discussed
the restaurants. We are not trying to hide anything. We don't
have a user yet although they are working with people, and that
is their intention. Sometimes when we get to the Council level
we get up there and quite often they hold up the final rezoning
until the site plan comes in and consider both at the same time.
That is haw they have their control over a development.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is your reaction to just doing that?
Mr. Tangora: Let me say this, the commercial is a very integral part. As you
can very well imagine, this property has sat there for a number
of years and different developers have tried to use it. These
people that own the property, the Baptist Church, know the value
of the property, and that is the value the property is being
bought for. The commercial usage is a very integral part of this
entire project and it is necessary for them to go forth and
develop the back parts.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, I would just like to follow up with what Mr.
Piercecchi just said. Certainly we are only looking at zoning
here tonight. This extended-stay suites hotel, to my mind, could
fill a need for Livonia. As far as the office building, I think
they said it was 50,000 sq. ft. , and Livonia is blessed with one
of the highest occupancy rates in the Metro area, so there could
be a demonstrated need that we need some more office in Livonia.
One thing we know we don't need is commercial. Commercial for
restaurants, we are not really short of restaurants either,
however, the right type of restaurant, I think one of the
petitioners referred to it as an up-scale restaurant, and that is
a subjective type of thing. In other words, what might be
up-scale to me, might not be up-scale to him and visa-versa. We
see two things up there, and I know we are only talking about
zoning, but in my mind I would be a little bit reticent to give a
C-2 zoning without a little bit more input, as you put it, as to
what is going to go in there. I am not doubting the character of
these two gentlemen or yourself, it is just we can't condition
14240
zoning. It could go to anything. I think Mr. LaPine has voiced
his concerns about Fox Drive. If this should go through site
plan, that would be one of the things that certainly would be
‘44.. looked at very carefully as far as ingress and egress, and
emergency vehicles and just handling the load.
Mr. Tangora: Again, my experience is being out there in that particular area
and doing some of the zoning work, and seeing some of the results
of the restaurants that have come in. Up on Seven Mile Road the
two restaurants that came in there and opened up, are two of the
top restaurants in those particular chains in the country. It
seems like every time a new restaurant cones into this town, and
I think it is a compliment to the City of Livonia and the
residents, and this goes all the way back to the Olive Garden and
all the other up-scale restaurants that have been built around
town, every time those chains come in and put in a restaurant,
the restaurant in Livonia goes right to the top. It is usually
one of the top, if not the top, restaurant in a particular chain.
I think there is a particular need that I see on Six Mile Road.
You have your office buildings there with a tremendous amount of
people that are there during the day who could feed off that
facility. Just like at Seven Mile Road, the two restaurants feed
off Schoolcraft College and some of the offices there. The
American Insurance building dawn there and the Duke project down
there supports those restaurants. That is what I see. They are
talking to restaurant chains right now. The ones they are
talking to are top-of-the line. Obviously, the one that would be
the top-of-the line would be on Six Mile right off the street.
*1411. Do they have a signed agreement? No, but that is who they are
talking to and that is what they intend to put up there.
Mr. Morrow: Just as a follow up to what I was saying earlier, we heard the
concern about the traffic. In fact, there were some homeowners
at the study session, and I suggested to them at that time that
they either (a) talk to the Traffic Commission or (b) talk to the
Mayor's office to see if there is anything that can be done to
alleviate that traffic problem with or without the development
across the street. Zoning takes a while. Development takes a
while. If this should go through, I would certainly like to see
some movement. That is not our prerogative but I am just letting
you know that traffic is a concern.
Mr. Tangora: I would be concerned and I think they are concerned also. If
their development is to be successful, they have to be able to
get in and out of Fox Street also just like the residents do. I
am aware that the City did some traffic studies a few years ago.
I don't know haw many years ago. We were led to believe the City
was going to review that to see if there was some information on
that study that affects that particular area. I am not sure what
that investigation is but even though if it was three or four
years ago, traffic has increased tremendously since that time,
and whatever information you had at that time is probably
14241
obsolete. I think the Traffic Commission should study that
corner. I think Wayne County should be enlisted to come out and
see what can be done because something should be done, not only
,` for our project if we go, but also for Quakertown and all the
other people that work and live around there.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, that traffic study you referred to was completed six
years ago, and the Planning staff did take a look at those
numbers but it was determined the information is so out of date
that it was basically meaningless at this point. I hate to stay
on that issue of traffic, but it is a major concern. I am
curious, when you talk about a traffic signal at Quakertown to
relieve the ingress and egress for the residents and the office
users across the road, haw wculd that function when the streets
don't line up here, and based on what I understand your future
plans are, there wouldn't be any opportunity to get those streets
lined up.
Mr. Tangora: I don't think they would but you do have off-line streets. You
have one over on Plymouth Road right west of Wonderland where the
streets don't line up.
Mr. Engebretson: And it is a problem.
Mr. Tangora: Yes it is a problem but it does allow the traffic to turn left
off those two streets on to Plymouth Road. I think it can be
done. I don't think this is as radical, the alignment of those
roads at Six Mile Road, as it is over on Plymouth Road. I am not
really sure. Again, I am not a Traffic Engineer and I don't mean
to stand up here saying I know all the answers, because I don't.
I do think something can be done, like whenever you do have a
great influx of traffic in any community, that traffic signals do
control it, and there are experts that can come out and tell the
City what has to be done. Even if we go away, you are still
going to have a problem there. You are going to have a problem
when that shopping center gets filled up on the west side of
Haggerty Road, and the rest of Northville Township gets
developed. They are all going to come down to I-275, and they
are going to go right by that area. It is a problem now. It is
going to get worse, and it should be studied.
Mr. Engebretson: I agree and I hope the residents take our suggestion to open the
issue up with the Traffic Commission, but just make sure you
understand the issue of traffic is going to be a major issue no
matter what happens to this zoning. If the zoning is approved in
whole or in part, when it comes to the site plan approval
process this traffic, if it is a major issue here tonight, it is
going to be a super, major issue then, and I will go on record
now and take the position, whether it is right or wrong, that a
24-foot road is inappropriate under any circumstances to service
the density of the development that is being proposed, and I
can't imagine the Fire Marshal or Police Department approving a
14242
project like this when it comes their turn for the reasons Mr.
LaPine stated. I just can't imagine anybody back there being in
trouble and needing help coming in or coming out. In the
summertime I guess you can run over the curbs and escape but not
'y"w necessarilyin the winter time. Does anybody ybody have any objection
if we go to the audience for new information. We don't want to
rehash what we have discussed but we want to make sure you have
your opportunity if there is anything new that you want to add.
(There were no objections to going to the audience)
Wendy Bernard: I have been here the last two times that this has been studied.
I do have a petition, there are about 80 signatures on it, from
the subdivision. These are just the streets we felt were most
affected by the traffic.
Mr. Engehretson: Just pass it over to Mr. Shane and we will make it a part of the
file.
M. Bernard: The other new that I would say, when they were talking about the
up-scale restaurant, part of the concern I have is would this be
serving liquor. If I were a resident at the senior citizen home,
the thought of having basically a restaurant that is open until
midnight in my front yard, having a restaurant that will be open
at 6:00 in the morning on the other side at my side yard, which
will also come up to the child care area where you have the
traffic, that was a concern to me as a mother. Having had a
parent in a senior citizen home, they do go to bed early, they do
sleep late, and that could be a concern. This isn't traffic, but
4110w he was talking about restaurants in the area. Yes, they are
successful, but in less than a mile we have Holiday Inn,
Marriott, Max & Irma's, Dennison's, Wing Yeas, Big Boys, Ground
Round, Bill Knapps and Kerby's. Within a mile north we have
Cooker's and Macaroni Grill. Within two miles we have Chili's, a
Big Boy, Kyoto's, and two McDonalds. Do we need any more
restaurants in the area. The only thing I would like to leave
with, there was an article in the newspaper, and I would hope all
of you read it. It was in the Detroit News of June 19th. It was
a wonderful article about Livonia. We are considered the 8th
best city in the country to live in and to raise kids. One of
the things that was said about it "This is a residential
community and that is the image we want to protect. Developers
will not have their way here. It is the desire to keep Livonia
free of the commercial mercial sprawl that has overtaken other suburbs
borders on a religion. The officials have kept a clenched fist
on development and growth is limited. We like to keep a
watchful eye. People have said they have looked for Livonia and
it stood out in a myriad of other suburbs they considered because
they seem to promote family values." I know you do listen to the
residents and that is why we are here. Having sat through the
first meeting, you don't just willy-nilly decide development, and
I appreciate the opportunity that I had to come here for my first
14243
time, the last two times and was able to be heard. I would just
hope that the things that were said would be taken into
consideration, and I thank you.
Mr. Engebretson: And we thank you for coming.
Rachael Colvin: I am a resident of Quakertown as well as a real estate agent in
the City. I wasn't at the other meetings, and maybe this has
already been said, but I thought I might add something. Whether
it is meaningful or not, I feel it is important. I feel it is
important to the residents of Quakertown. Just showing homes in
the subdivision, if it is at that particular time of night, four,
five or six o'clock or in the morning, it discourages future
buyers in Livonia, and in that particular area, because they
can't get over the traffic and how difficult it is to get out of
the subdivision. That is something to consider, I think, for
property value in the Quakertown Sub. They mention expressway,
expressway noise, how close the homes are to the expressway.
This is just another added deterrent as far as I am concerned
because it discourages possibly a future buyer flow buying in
that particular sub, or maybe getting the money we should get for
our homes because of this problem and the appreciation may go
down because of the traffic that is a problem. I guess, too, I
want to ask, and maybe this has been talked about before, isn't
there something that the Planning Commission can do? There is a
light at Haggerty, and there is a light right by I-275 and one by
Newburgh. Can't they time these lights some way so at least
there is time to make that left-hand turn, at least for two to
three cars?
Mr. Engehretson: Unfortunately that is not our domain, but I am sure Wendy is
going to pick the ball up and run with that.
Ms. Colvin: The other thing I might mention too, maybe nobody took into
consideration, I think the gentleman that spoke prior, I don't
know what the projection for the church being there on that
northwest corner in Northville would be. Our office used to be
at Ward Presbyterian Church at Six Mile and Farmington. We had
to move. That was one of the reasons we moved to Victor Parkway
and moved our office because on Sundays, and a lot of times
during the week, and especially at the dinner hour, they have had
dinners at the church, and we could not find a place to park, and
the traffic was horrendous. That is not even here yet. That
plus another restaurant and all the other things, with the new
shopping center on the southwest side, I just don't see how
creating a problem would not be there. As far as that up-scale
restaurant, the entrance to the restaurant would be off Six Mile
Road, I am gathering, and not off Fox Drive, so again you have
people coming out from that area for the purpose of going in and
out of the restaurant as well as the other development that they
don't know what is going to be there yet. Something has to be
done. I don't know the answer but I thought I would give that
input.
14244
Mr. Schaneberger, 15964 Swathmore Ct. : One remark that Mr. Morrow made and one
remark that Mr. LaPine made in reference to the up-scale
restaurant. Quoted were the Olive Garden, etc. I can only tell
you I do a lot of traveling for my company and I don't consider
those upscale restaurants. I consider those average restaurants,
*4110. number one. Number two, as far as traffic pattern is concerned.
The traffic pattern grew quite substantially after the tie in of
275 and 696, and the noise level and everything else has gone up
with it. However, if you were to go ahead and have an outlet
directly across from the entrance into Quakertown, as one person
suggested, what would happen is people would come directly across
the street and get to the subdivision and use that as an egress
to get out of the traffic situation on Six Mile Road. So having
that directly across would not help the situation. As far as the
traffic pattern is concerned there right now, myself and my wife
both have heart conditions, and I can tell you that there have
been several times when I have had to go to the doctors that
scared the heck out of me to have to go up there and not be able
to get out on a street to get to a doctor's office. If that is
the condition it is in now, I think this particular development,
in my estimation, is over saturation for the area. The magnitude
of the hotel and everything else. There is certainly plenty of
space next to the Hampton at Eight Mile Road where they could put
that big of a structure. I really don't think this is needed in
this area. It is too much for too little space.
Mr. Engebretson: What do you think should go there sir?
Mr. Schaneberger: If they are going to put something in there for commercial
development in the area, I would much rather see something that
would be limited to a two-story rise or a three-story rise type
of office structure or something of that nature. Certainly
not a high-rise where they have a lot of people and a lot of
cars.
Mr. Morrow: I appreciate your input sir because I said that up-scale is
subjective. You mentioned two nice restaurants but I don't
consider them up-scale either. Until I knew what was going in
there, I could not decide whether I could go along with it or
not. That is where I was coming from. I concur with you, they
are nice restaurants but I don't consider those up-scale.
Mr. Schaneberger: The Americana in Kansas City, for instance is a five-star, or the
Sardine Factory in Monterey. I consider those up-scale.
Brian Sullivan, 38984 Reo Dr. : A real quick comment. I think a traffic light is
the wrong thing to do. It is telling any potential home buyer or
anybody in the area, that this is a major thoroughfare. We don't
need an exit to our subdivision being called out to the world as
a major thoroughfare. Secondly, what about beautification of the
City. That is probably one of the smallest parcels of land that
looks nice with a white building behind it. We try to keep
something looking decent in our City without having huge
buildings coming over the roads. You are asking what can be put
in there in place of it? How about something that doesn't run
14245
during normal business hours, something like a church that has
major traffic during Sunday. The comment was made that a hotel
has off hours. It doesn't have off hours. People stay there,
they get up and go to work in the morning and they come back
after work. It is the same hours. It is not an off-hour
establishment. That is the extent of my comments.
Robert Breen, 39144 Reo Dr. : There are three areas of concern that I would like to
bring up. First is the need for another hotel in the area. The
information I obtained indicates along the I-275 corridor
occupancy rates for 1994 average 65%. This figure is for the
corridor from Canton to Novi and Farmington Hills. I have been
told that anything higher than 70% is good for bank financing.
However, it does cause one question, that whenever existing
hotels cannot get 75%, do we really need more hotel space in the
area? Secondly, is the need for the office building. The
information I received communicates that in an approximate one
square mile area bound by Haggerty, Seven Mile, Newburgh and Six
Mile Road, there is approximately 60,000 sq. ft. available now,
with another 100,000 sq. ft. planned. My question there is with
these numbers for this immediate area, do we really need another
office building, and if we do, why not place it in a more
suitable area like Victor Corporate Park. The third is the
traffic, which we have been hearing a lot about tonight. I would
just like to ask if there has been any type of traffic impact
study done by the developer. Will that be something that will be
requested?
Mr. Engebretson: Perhaps, at a later time. Possibly at site plan time if this is
*Nor approved.
Mr. Breen: That is a very important issue. I am sure the other residents
have mentioned it at the previous meetings. I am not opposed to
the development as long as it is one in the best interests of
everyone, the developer, the City officials, and most importantly
the residents. Long after everyone else is gone, it will be the
residents who will have to contend with this traffic. I would
like to think that a less ambitious development of this property
could result in the best for everyone and not just a few.
Pat Tadajewski, 15897 Swathmore Ln. : I will keep my comments very short. Without
beating a dead horse, I greatly disagree with Mr. Tangora that we
won't notice that big of a difference in traffic. I think what
it is basically going to do is take a current problem that we
have in the morning and in the evening and it is just going to
make it happen constantly all day long. The other thing I wanted
to mention is you were wandering what we should do with the
property, if not develop it. In the last few years I have
noticed that particular area of Livonia has been developed very
heavily in single-family dwellings, and the nearest local park
happens to be Bicentennial Park off Seven Mile Road. There
really isn't anything located closer to Quakertown, and I am just
14246
wondering if it wouldn't be worth considering putting in a park
in that area. That would allow for less congestion. You would
have families that would be utilizing it after hours. I don't
feel there would be near the amount of congestion you are going
Nimy to have using a development of this type. The other concern I
have is the fact it is only considering one inlet. I used to live
in Redford. We just currently moved to Livonia, and all too
often I have seen where promises have been made by developers
that they would only create one inlet, and within a year or two
they just basically came back to the Planning Commission and they
got the okay to put out a second inlet and didn't consider what
was happening to the residents in the local area. The third
statement I would like to make is the people in Quakertown will
have to live with this development. We have to consider what is
happening in Northville as well as in Livonia. After everyone
else is gone, we are going to be the ones standing back,
listening to the traffic, watching all the traffic coming out of
these properties, and I don't think the developer is going to be
around to watch what we are dealing with.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else wishing to speak to the issue, then a
motion would be in order.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I think a tabling motion is in order again. I
would like to table this until (1) we can get a complete
up-to-date traffic study of that area, and (2) on this proposed
hotel, you see about 25 cars parked around in the picture, which
means nothing. I would like to see haw large it would be and how
many cars there would be, and also the office building. I would
like to table this until we get a traffic study.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#6-119-95 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 95-5-1-11 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi
NAYS: McCann, Morrow, Engehretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Piercecchi: I would also like for the Chairman to see if the developer could
14247
possibly consider just zoning that north section because I don't
think that is going to be the traffic problem. The proposed
restaurants could be a traffic problem but I don't believe a
residential apartment complex is going to be a problem, nor the
*'"' office building. I would like to have that included in the study
too.
Mr. Morrow: A question to the Chair and possibly the staff, is zoning the
appropriate time to look at traffic studies or is that more
appropriate for the site plan process?
Mr. Shane: I think both times are appropriate. This is enough of a possible
impact on the area. A traffic study certainly would be valuable
to your studies.
Mr. NkCann: It might be beneficial also in the traffic study to compare what
the current traffic situation is, what the current zoning would
produce, and what the proposed zoning would produce.
Mr. Engebretson: Very good. That is the right way to go. So the item is tabled
until a date uncertain. I don't know how many of you in the
audience, other than those that spoke, are interested in keeping
informed on this, but those that spoke and gave their addresses,
we will make sure that at a very minimum you will be informed as
to when our next meeting is. Anyone that didn't speak that is
interested, please call the Planning Department tomorrow,
421-2000, Ext. 267 and put your name on file.
Mr. Cann: Mr. Chairman, the meeting isn't recorded, we don't have a
transcript, Jean is not here so they may want to call.
Mr. Engebretson: That is why I am asking them to call. There will be a transcript
because Jean does get a video tape and she will do a verbatim
transcript of the meeting.
Mr. Shane: Just to make sure everybody is clear, the traffic study is to be
prepared by the developer.
Mr. Engebretson: Absolutely. I would just like to say, all of us that live in
Livonia deal with difficult traffic situations. I happen to live
just south of Seven Mile Road, a quarter of a mile east of
Newburgh, and that area has had intense development recently. I
have had times when I go out and want to make a left hand turn
onto Newburgh. I can sit there for three to four minut s. I
have a choice of turning right and turning around. I think all
of us face the choice that comes with progress, and while we want
to be sensitive to your concerns, we want to make sure we solve
the issues in a proper manner. The developer obviously has the
right to use the property. It is unrealistic to think that
property is going to sit there unused. Right now we could have a
nine-story, high-rise senior housing facility built there. That
is what the current zoning calls for, and so the intensity
14248
could potentially be even greater with what the current zoning
supports. We have to keep all those things in mind as we move
forward with this proposal. Anyway, we will take it up again at
Nom. we
future date. You will be notified according to the discussion
we just had.
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 95-4-2-14
by Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor
seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Engebretson: This also was tabled at a previous meeting, so we need to remove
it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-120-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-4-2-14 by Outback Steakhouse requesting
waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing
restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, be
taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Chairman: H, do you have anything new in your files?
Mr. Shane: The only thing we have new is a drawing, which I believe you have
all received, which shows the latest request by the petitioner,
and that is to locate 24 seats on the sidewalk area outside the
building in the form of four benches. They would be placed on
either side of the main entryway, and behind a wooden fence area.
You might recall, before he had tables that would go also on the
east side. This would be confined to just four benches on the
north side of the building, flanking each side of the door.
Mr. Engebretson: Would it be your understanding H, that these would be the
existing benches that are there? There are at least two benches
there now.
Mr. Shane: They would add two to what is already there.
Mr. Engebretson: So everybody knows what is going on here, the reason this was
tabled was because apparently there was some miscommunication
with the petitioner at the time, and they didn't appear, and
therefore it was put off until tonight. It was tabled, if I
recall correctly, at a previous meeting because we didn't have
14249
appropriate drawings. Now we seem to have appropriate drawings
and the petitioner is standing at the podium.
Mike Fuhrman: I am the Managing Partner for that store, and we did decide not
'No" to do tables. The company decided they really don't want to do a
patio with outdoor seating. Our kitchen is set up to accommodate
the 42 tables that we have at the restaurant. We really didn't
want to add more. Rasically, with our limited waiting area
inside the building, in the summer people want to wait outside,
so that is what we would do is add two more benches to the
existing benches that we already have. I am working with the
Liquor Commission with serving alcohol out there while people are
waiting for their tables in the dining room.
Mr. Engelretson: H, does the Liquor Control Commission have complete authority in
the matter of whether or not there is outdoor liquor served?
Does the City get involved at all in that matter?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. EngPhretson: So if the Liquor Commission should say that it is okay, and if
this proposal were not approved to put that bench up and put
those two benches out there, then they apparently can still serve
liquor outside, they just wouldn't have the benefit of the fence.
Am I making the right assumption?
Mr. Shane: They wouldn't have the benefit of seats. What you started out to
approve was tables and chairs for outdoor dining. Now we are
reduced to seats only for possible waiting, with the liquor to be
served outside. In my opinion, unless he is going to have
outdoor dining, your need for approval has evaporated. Although
the other way to look at it is, if they were able to sit down and
drink inside, they could drink outside, so you could take the
position they would need your approval to that extent. If you
were to take all the seating away, there would be nothing for you
to approve. It would all be in the hands of the Liquor Control
Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what I was trying to get to.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are we just approving six benches here tonight?
Mr. Engebretson: Four.
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought two are going on the east side.
Mr. Engebretson: It is adding two benches and adding the fence.
Mr. Fuhrman: We would like to put the fence up to keep everybody right in the
front of the restaurant there and not wandering around. That is
also with the benches there.
14250
Mr. Engebretson: Haw are you going to control these people?
Mr. Fuhrman: The fence is going to be set up with two gate entrances, one on
the end of the Past side of the building and one directly in
front. Then the benches will be there. We will have someone
serving them out there while they are waiting for their table,
cocktails or coffee or whatever they want.
Mr. Alanskas: You have two existing benches right now. At the present time are
people coming out and sitting there with drinks in their hands?
Mr. Fuhrman: Right now if we see people leave with drinks, we make them come
back in with alcohol. If they are just sitting there, it is not
a problem, but we don't have any approval for the alcohol so
obviously we don't want to have problems with it.
Mr. Alanskas: But you are allowing people to go out there and sit?
Mr. Fuhrman: Yes we are.
Mr. Morrow: I would just like to get a little better idea as it relates to
the control. You have two gates there now. Are those gates by
your front entrance?
Mr. Fuhrman: There will be one, and the Liquor Control Commission requires
that we have these gates, in the front, and it will be an
emergency exit more than a gate along the east side of the
building there at the end.
`.. Mr. Morrow: Does the fence wraparound?
Mr. Fuhrman: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Can you get ingress to the restaurant from this without going
through those gates?
Mr. Fuhrman: No.
Mr. Morrow: In other words, you would have to go back to the front entrance
and go in there.
Mr. Fuhrman: Right.
Mr. Morrow: And if you wanted to come out with a drink in your hand, you
would have to come up to the front entrance and through that
gate.
Mr. Fuhrman: Right.
Mr. Morrow: My chief concern is the ability to control it.
Mr. Fuhrman: The most I have seen waiting out there is 20 at our busiest time
14251
on the week nights. We do have a full bar inside, obviously, if
you haven't been there, and we have seating in the waiting area
directly by the front door where you come in but there is not a
`.• lot of space. It is not like we will have many, many people out
there. It will be like 20 to 25 people at the most.
Mr. Morrow: You don't feel you would have any trouble controlling or
confining the people?
Mr. Fuhrman: We are out there all the time making sure people are getting
taken care of, that litter is being picked up, and that the place
looks good out in front.
Mr. Engebretson: Does the Liquor Control Commission require you to put this fence
up or is that just something you want to do?
Mr. Fuhrman: I don't know if the fence is required, but if we want to do the
fence, we have to have the gates. We would like to do the fence
because we have it at the Shelby unit and it adds to the look of
the restaurant and the area. It looks very nice so it is an
aesthetic thing also. We definitely have to have gates if we
fence in the area.
Mr. Ehgehretson: But it is possible, if I understand correctly, that you could go
forward with your serving liquor outdoors without this proposal
being successful.
Mr. LaPine: I only had really one problem with this when I was out there on
the weekend looking at this. On the east side, I have no
problem, but on the front of the building, the way this building
is constructed, you have big pillars so the sidewalk area is not
that wide. The front of the building that is a main ingress and
egress down to the shopping center. The Chairman and I were
sitting there watching that and I said to Jack if anybody came
down and lost control of their car and there were a number of
people sitting out there, you would plow right through them, and
that causes me a real problem. I am not saying that is ever
going to happen, but there is always that possibility. It
doesn't make any difference if you sell liquor out there or not,
if anyone ever comes along there and loses control of their car
because there is no curb there, they will plow through all those
people.
Mr. Fuhrman: The way the fence would be set up, I think there would be three
feet of sidewalk and then the fence and then seating area.
Mr. TaPine: The problem with that is you have your fence and the people that
are not going into your restaurant, they are getting that much
closer to the road. To me it is a safety hazard. It doesn't
make a lot of difference if you are selling liquor out there or
you are not selling liquor out there, it still is a problem.
14252
Mr. Fuhrman: I guess what I see when the people come by since we are the
corner building, the only time they are going to walk along that
sidewalk is to walk into our store because there are no other
stores further down.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I don't like this package. I think it needs a lot
of revision. It is unfortunate that it may be out of our hands
but I would like to recommend that we vote to deny this petition
in hopes that the Liquor Control Commission will take that into
account. I believe in patios and things of that nature. They
can be an asset to the restaurant and to the City but this is
really an area that one end is a parking lot, in front of it is a
driveway, and the control feature, I just think it needs to be
revised completely maybe into a complete patio section. Perhaps
going to your landlord and walling out an area such as Mario's
has. That is a wonderful patio.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#6-121-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on May 23, 1995 on Petition 95-4-2-14 by
Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor
seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-4-2-14 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
`''m' proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the additional seats will overburden the subject site in that
they will interrupt the normal pedestrian traffic in the area; and
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that this proposal
will accomplish the goal of confining patrons to the sidewalk
area as depicted on the drawings submitted with this petition.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
Nolo- resolution adopted.
14253
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Reolution #157-95, to
hold a public hearing on the question of whether an amendment should
`.• be made to the Zoning Ordinance to add additional uses to the C-1
district regulations (either as permitted uses or as waiver uses) .
Mr. Engebretson: The purpose of this agenda item is simply to set a public hearing
to make the determination.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-122-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to
provide for additional permitted uses and waiver uses in the C-i
zoning district.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to the R-1 through R-5 districts of the Zoning Ordinance
relative to home occupations.
Mr. Engehretson: This is a proposed amendment to the residential districts
relative to home occupations, having primarily to do with making
clarifications of crafts and music instruction in the home to get
in line with state law. I am looking for a motion to set that
public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-123-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend Section 4.02(g) of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for
certain home occupations as permitted accessory uses in R-1 thru R-5
zoning districts.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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.
14254
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance which would require double striping of parking
spots.
Mr. Engebretson: This amendment would require double striping of parking spots as
compared to the single striping required presently. We are not
looking to change anything relative to widths but simply to align
the cars better within the ten foot base.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-124-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend Section 18.37 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to require double
striping of parking lots.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh
Road south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from
RUF to R-6.
Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to set this public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-125-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located
on the Past side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to R-6; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
14255
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-6-8-11
by Gallagher Group Construction Company, on behalf of Bethel Baptist
Temple, requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of
�. Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the church located at 29475 Six Mile Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This is a church that is located on the south side of Six Mile
just west of Middlebelt Road. They are proposing to construct an
addition to the rear of their existing church. The addition will
be 2,000 sq. ft. and will be two stories in height, and will
basically square off the back of the building. The floor plan
shows that the main floor will be used as classroom and the
second floor will be used as office and overflow for the
sanctuary portion of the church. The new addition will be
constructed out of brick, which the existing building is
constructed out of so it should match.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner care to add to those comments?
Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger: My office is right next door to this church. We
are approximately 900 sq. ft. per floor. We are squaring the
back of the building out to resemble the rest. We are adding two
little classrooms on the first floor, and a little bit of room
upstairs for the sanctuary so it balances with the addition we put
on the front four or five years ago. Parking is very adequate.
There has never been any problems with parking. There is usually
one-third of that parking lot that is open every Sunday.
Whatever questions you gentlemen might have.
Mr. Engebretson: We were concerned about the parking. The Pastor of the Church, I
see him sitting in the back, came to our study meeting and he
assured us that parking is adequate for present and planned
requirements, and the Planning staff agrees with that, so parking
is not an issue here tonight. The Pastor also acknowledged that
if parking becomes a problem, that is his problem and a nice
problem to have, and he will take care of it.
Mrs. Blomberg: I remember when you came before ZBA several years ago to build on
the front of the church, and I remember at that time it was a
hardship to you. You could not build on the back. I am just
curious I guess why you can build on the back now when you
couldn't build on the back then.
Mr. Gallagher: Number one, I wasn't designing the building originally. That was
designed by somebody else. We ended up building it so we weren't
here on any petitioning with the original building. They just
chose us to design this portion of it at the back. What you are
mentioning is news to me. I knew we had to comply because of the
building being set back where it is. There was nothing we could
change with that. This little addition is just kind of blending
the west side of it and part of the east side of the
14256
building with the rest of the structure.
Ms. Blomberg: So you didn't own the church at that time so you wouldn't know
what the hardship was.
Mr. Engebretson: You may want to ask the Pastor that. This is the architect.
Pastor, Bethel Baptist: I didn't hear the question. I am sorry.
Ms. Blomberg: Several years ago you built on the front of your church. At that
time you had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals because you
claimed a hardship that you could not build on the church at the
back, and so you got a waiver to build on the front. I am just
curious as to why now you are able to build on the back.
Pastor: We had a different amount of square footage. Then we were
wanting to built on the front for a couple of purpose:. One was
for demand in office spaces as well as Sunday School spaces.
Two, we were wanting to remodel that front. If you recall the
building itself, it was quite unsightly. The feeling was we
could not remodel the front and do the building in the back. We
couldn't spend that amount of money. Remodeling without getting
our square footage in the front and then trying to put it in the
back. The expense trying to do both of them would have been out
of our reach.
Ms. Blomberg: So basically you just simply needed the space in the front, and
that was your hardship.
Pastor: Right. We could remodel the front, we could update the building
and the space we needed in the front, we could get it. What we
are doing in the back, is nowhere near the amount we did in the
front.
Ms. Blomberg: And this is a different usage also. Is that correct?
Pastor: For the most part.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-126-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 95-6-8-11 by Gallagher Group Construction Company, on behalf
of Bethel Baptist Temple, requesting approval for all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the church located at 29475 Six
Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet No. C-1 dated May 22, 1995,
by Gallagher Group Construction Company, Inc. , is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
..
14257
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet No. A-2 dated May 22,
1995, by Gallagher Group Construction Company, Inc. , is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
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 95-6-8-12
by Albert Abbo & Associates requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 31429
Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft
and Merriman. They are proposing to construct a shopping center
of three units based on the parking. With three units they need
30 parking spaces, which the site plan shows, so they are
conforming with parking. Landscaping, they are required to have
15%. They have 22% so they are conforming in landscaping. At
the study meeting it was suggested that the building be
constructed at least on three sides with brick. The petitioner
has submitted new elevation plans that show that the front and
east and west sides will be brick. (He presented the elevation
plan)
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to refer to Mr. Shane this letter from David Woodcox
that states the dumpster site seems to be inaccessible. Trucks
are approximately 35' in length whereas only 23' is provided for
pick-up, and parking as proposed meets the minimum requirements
No . set forth in section 18.38(21) however, sheet #2 refers to a
kitchen plan. This would indicate the possibility of a
restaurant at this site. Some consideration should be given to
the increase in parking requirements for restaurant uses. The
third point he mentions, it is not that important, but he says
the elevations on sheet #2 appear to be reversed (east is west).
How would you comment Mr. Shane in reference to numbers 1 and 2
on the dumpster and parking.
Mr. Shane: As far as the dumpster is concerned, we did indicate to Mr. Abbo,
the architect, that we felt the dumpster should be moved further
east. They could do that by moving the transformer possibly next
to the building and simply move the dumpster further east, and we
would be satisfied with that situation and so would the Building
Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: He will do that?
Mr. Shane: He said he would.
Mr. Piercecchi: That resolves the first part.
Mr. Shane: And the second part, with respect to the restaurant, we indicated
14258
to you that this building, at this point in time, is a spec
building, with three units indicated, which means that the
parking is predicated on one space per each 150 sq. ft. If that
changes, and we have a major part of this center in a restaurant,
N`.y it may change that parking requirement. At this point in time,
we have a footprint, we have a square footage, and that is what
we have to deal with. It is the petitioner's problem if he
brings something into that building that doesn't meet the parking
requirement.
Mr. Morrow: I was reading some background notes, run that by me about the
brick again on the elevations. I was not paying attention and I
apologize.
Mr. Miller: At the study meeting, on the original site plan it showed block,
and at the study meeting, Planning CXmmission suggested that
three sides be brick, which they have conformed to.
Mr. Morrow: Based on that, I have a couple of questions to the petitioner.
For the rear building, would it be a hardship to put split-face
block on there and paint it the same color as the brick?
Mr. Tangora: May I represent the petitioner. This is Al Abbo, who is the
architect. He has worked with Mr. Shane and Mr. Nagy in revising
some of his plans. I will let him answer the question.
Mr. Abbo: The three sides are going to be face brick, and the back, as of
now, painted block. We might have to go with the brick also.
r„` Mr. Morrow: We would prefer that. Can you do that. That would be great.
One other request. Could you double stripe the parking lot? I
don't know if the plan shows it or not.
Mr. Abbo: That would be satisfactory.
Mr. McCann: You brought a rendering.
Mr. Tangora: Tb give you an idea of what the building will look like. (They
displayed the rendering) I can tell you what the center will
consist of. The owner of the property is Mr. Shango. He has
received the approval of the transfer of the SDD and SDM license
and the most westerly portion of this building will be a party
store. He is the owner of several other party stores. The other
two stores that will be in there will be strictly retail
establishments. I might tell you, and Mr. Shane brought it up,
the plans came in with some diagrams about kitchen equipment and
was Mr. Shango's idea that it would be an ideal location for a
small restaurant. In speaking to Mr. Woodcox and Mr. Shane about
that, I realize what the additional parking requirements would
be. I talked to Mr. Shango and I think at this point he has
abandoned that particular idea. We don't have a user for the
other two or possible three units, but they would be retail-type
14259
units. We have a leasing agent that has a number of people that
indicated they would be interested in going into that location so
I don't think there is any problem whatsoever in leasing it out.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, because this is an unusual piece of property, I want
to get this straight in my mind. If this owner, or a later
owner, comes back with a proposal, they wouldn't have to come
back with a proposal if they wanted to put in a restaurant?
Mr. Shane: No because it is C-3 zoning.
Mr. McCann: The parking requirement, though, for a restaurant would be
greater. Would they have to go to the ZBA before they could put
a restaurant in?
Mr. Shane: If the site plan shows the parking is deficient, yes.
Mr. McCann: So they couldn't go in with a restaurant until they went to the
ZBA?
Mr. Shane: Not if they were deficient in parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, just to follow up on that. If restaurants are a
permitted use, where would the control be relative to determining
whether or not the parking lot would accommodate the need for
additional spaces?
Mr. Shane: They would have to get an occupancy permit. There would be a
zoning compliance study done and a permit issued. If the site
`, doesn't meet the parking requirements, then the zoning compliance
permit would not be issued.
Mr. Engebretson: In that case what would happen if the petitioner wanted to move
forward?
Mr. Shane: Then they would have to make application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to get a variance.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, getting back to the restaurant. Mr. Tangora stated
here this evening that the owner of the building has now
abandoned the possibility of having a restaurant in there.
Mr. Tangora: He wasn't aware that there was additional parking required.
Mr. LaPine: Would you put it on the record tonight, so we could be assured,
that we don't have to worry about a restaurant going in there?
Mr. Tangora: I don't know if it is considered a restaurant, maybe an
interpretation by Mr. Shane, there is a donut shop over on
Farmington Road at the expressway, Looney Baker. The Looney
Baker is very interested in being there. I am not sure that is a
"restaurant"
14260
Mr. LaPine: If Looney Baker wants to go in there, he will want the same thing
he has on Farmington Road which, in my opinion, is a traffic
hazzard with people driving up to the carryout window. Is there
any restriction against that?
`, Mr. Shane: If you are serving food and there are seats, it is a restaurant
of some sort. On the question of a drive-up window, this site
couldn't accommodate that. What the Building Department would do
is look at the floor plan, the number of seats, and calculate the
parking and if it doesn't fit, then they have a choice of going
elsewhere or trying to get a variance.
Mr. LaPine: On the far west side in the middle which is going to be one of
your parking areas, there are 2 big transformers on it. Is that
going to have to be moved?
Mr. Abbo: They would have to be.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tangora, There are no parking lot light fixtures shown on the
site plan.
Mr. Tangora: The lighting fixtures are on the new site plan.
Mr. Alanskas: And how high are they going to be?
Mr. Abbo: Twenty-five feet.
Mr. Alanskas: How about twenty feet?
Mr. Abbo: The light will be coming straight down.
Mr. Morrow: Getting back to the brick, what color is that?
Mr. Abbo: White or off-white.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will this be returned to us for signage?
Mr. Shane: Only if you require it. The signage appears to be pretty small.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't object to it, I only wondered if they had to come back.
Mr. Tangora: We will wait until the various tenants are known and then we can
come back and show you how they will be put on the building.
Mr. McCann: H, as long as they are not exceeding the current ordinance, they
would not have to go to ZBA. They are only allowed the one wall
sign per business?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: There is no request for a monument sign there, or would they be
allowed a monument sign there?
14261
Mr. Shane: They would be allowed a monument sign.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against the proposal?
`tow Julie Alkarawi: I am the owner of Bai-Lynn Party store which is almost 400 feet
away from this place. First of all, Mr. Tangora mentioned that the
petitioner got approval from the LOC, I want to make you aware that we
are appealing this approval, which is not final yet. The approval
stated that there will be a party store. According to the approval of
LCC, they stated that the dimensions of the party store according to
the plan will be 19'x38'. The dimensions on this site plan does not
look like this at all. Secondly, from what I just heard, they are
planning on putting in a donut shop plus the party store. Every one
of you is aware of the in and out of traffic if this will be approved.
You know haw close this shopping center is to the traffic light and
this will be a problem, especially during rush hour with people going
to the highway. They do have entrance from Merriman and Schoolcraft
which would create a problem for people going home after work. I
wonder if it would be possible to have the entrance and exit from
Schoolcraft to solve some of the traffic jam.
Mr. Engebretson: I had an opportunity to read the file relative to your appeal.
It is not our mission to deal with those issues, as you know. That's
for the Circuit Court to determine. You are aware that this property
is zoned C-3 which is one of the very few such districts in the City.
The building which is being proposed has to be looked at by this body
as to whether or not it meets the ordinance as to its placement on the
property, whether or not it meets the parking requirements, the
landscaping requirements and so on. The use that is permitted in that
\r. building is a very broad use based on the C-3 zoning district. The
case that you have before the Circuit Court will deal with the liquor
license. That's not for us to say the SDD, SDM sales are a permitted
use in that district. From the City's point of view, no waiver uses
are needed, as is the case on your property. While we can be aware of
your situation, those factors aren't appropriate to be taken into
consideration relative to the hearing tonight. The question is does
it meet the requirements of the ordinance relative to the construction
of the building. It is not really a part that we can deal with.
Julie Alkarawi: Haw about the situation with the traffic?
Mr. Engebretson: There was a business there before and it would be my
understanding that they have a right to build this building there.
On a notion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-127-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 95-6-8-12 by Albert Abbo & Associates
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
center on property located at 31429 Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions:
14262
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet No. 1 dated June 5, 1995, as
revised, by Albert Abbo & Associat s, is hereby approved and
`r.. shall be adhered to, with the additional condition that the light
standard shall not exceed 20 feet;
2) That the parking spaces for the entire shopping center shall be
double striped;
3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Project No. 259-94 dated
6/15/95, by Albert Abbo & Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded lawn area, and all planted materials shall be
installed prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet No. 2 dated May 26,
1995, as revised, by Albert Abbo & Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the front and
side exterior of the building shall be constructed out of brick,
and that the signage shall be brought back for both Planning
Commission and Council approval;
6) That all roof-top mechanical units that can be seen by the public
shall be screened and painted a color to match the building;
7) That the trash dumpster enclosure gates, when not in use, shall
be maintained and closed at all times.
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 95-6-8-13
by Manoogian Manor requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal
to expand the existing facility located at 15775 Middlebelt Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the west side of Middlebelt between Five Mile
and Wentworth. The petitioner is proposing to add approximately
a 6,000 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the elderly development
located on this site. The addition will be used for additional
bedrooms and a large day room in the center of the addition. The
addition will be constructed out of brick to match the existing
building except that it will have a pitched asphalt shingled roof
whereas the existing building has a flat roof. The architects
decided to pitch this roof because of the leaking problem that
the facility has now.
14263
Ted Yessayan, Architect: I don't have a lot to add except for one comment. I
chose to pitch the roof because I wanted to give the building
`m. more importance and I thought we could do this as well as take
care of the leaking roof and hopefully when they get this done, I
can convince them to do the same thing to the front of the
building. By putting a pitch roof that has a building behind it,
that impacts the snow load from the roof. I felt it would be
important to give the building a little presence to it because
it's so far back from Middlebelt Road.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed that there were a number of units that had window air
conditioning units and some that didn't. Is the building air
conditioned or is that that an option each person can have?
Mr. Yessayan: The building is partially air conditioned, but none of the
bedrooms are air conditioned. We are not the architects of this
project, but the air conditioned portion of the building is the
corridors and the day room in the front of the building.
Mr. LaPine: It's a nice piece of property in the rear area where you were
talking about putting up a fence, but we noticed back there one
area where there are wrought iron windows, can you tell me what
that was?
Mr. Yessayan: I am not sure. One of the additions in the back is a dining
room, but to my knowledge that doesn't have any grating on it at
all.
Mr. LaPine: These windows did. I just wondered. It looks like a nice
addition there.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, Seconded by Ms. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-128-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 95-6-8-13 by Manoogian Manor requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to expand the existing facility
located at 15775 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14,
be approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the Site Plan, Composite Floor Plan & Elevations, defined as
Sheet No. 1 dated 6/9/95, by Theodore Yessayan Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
14264
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Kmart Corporation requesting approval for signage for
the store located at 30255 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This is the Kmart located in the Wonderland Shopping Center. Right
now they have existing signage on the building. They have a large
Kmart across the front with a garden shop over the doors that lead
into the garden shop. They are proposing 6 wall signs, one would be
the large logo "K" which is 126 sq. ft. They have a "Kmart Garden
Shop" which is 98 sq. ft. , a "Knott Auto Service" which is 77 sq. ft. ,
a "Little Caesar's Pizza Station" which is 63 sq. ft. , and "Kmart
Pharmacy" which is 80 sq. ft. On the east elevation they are
proposing just "Auto Service" which is 62 sq. ft. All in all, the 6
wall signs add up to be 506 sq. ft. They are allowed one wall sign at
450 sq. ft. so they are over what they are allowed in wall signage.
They are proposing to take down their existing pole sign and put up a
new monument sign 8' high, 48 sq. ft. They are allowed one at 30 sq.
ft. and six feet high, so they are over on the ground sign. They went
to the Zoning Board and, based on the variance they were granted, the
signage is conforming to the variance.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Jerry Wargo, Kmart Corporation: I was unable to attend the study meeting, but I
understand that it was recommended that the small Kmart signs which
are over the pharmacy, the garden shop and the auto service be
eliminated. We would be happy to accommodate you in that regard.
Mr. LaPine: We also have a sign up there for Little Caesar's on the outside, do we
not?
Mr. Wargo: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: I remember when Kmart remodeled their store on Seven Mile and
Farmington, they wanted to come in here with a Little Caesar's Pizza
Station and we were opposed to that. We thought it would set a sign
precedence as far as anything that went into that store that wasn't a
part of Kmart, they would want a sign. As I understand it, that is
for the convenience of the people going into Kmart. You are not
trying to draw people from outside of Kmart just to eat at Little
Caesar's. I don't really see the need for that sign too. You have to
draw a line on haw many signs you are going to have on a building.
Here again if that Little Caesar's Pizza Station is strictly for the
people in Kmart shopping, why do we need the sign on the outside?
Mr. Wargo: I am sure that the people from Little Caesar's would argue that since
the sign is visible from the street, that it would draw people to have
a quick lunch or dinner. I do know that because of the architecture
of the building, we had to downsize it to about 17' where we normally
have a sign that is approximately 23' or 24', and it is
non-illuminated.
14265
Mr. LaPine: There is a Little Caesar's Pizza Station at the store at Seven Mile
and Farmington and there is no sign out there.
Mr. Wargo: I understand. We would be happy to compromise on the three Kmarts,
't.- but we would like to have that Little Caesar's. We do feel that's
important.
Mr. Morrow: We certainly do want to keep that location on Plymouth Road viable,
but on the site plan, was all that bulk storage part of the approval?
We have pallets of various materials, an awfully lot of it there. It
looked like the area was set apart for that type of sales. Was it
approved for that type of storage?
Mr. Shane: It was approved for outdoor storage and sales of equipment. The kinds
of things were not specified.
Mr. Morrow: They are operating within the stipulations of the approval?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Wargo: One of the reasons we are adding on to what was the closed garden
center in front, as well as the open garden center, is to enclose our
materials. Right now we don't have enough room to keep all the
landscape materials, so we are going to put up a fence there, extend
the fence, go with a wrought iron and block, as well as a 15' return
to enhance the area.
Mr. Morrow: I do recall now you came before us regarding that.
`411., Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, last week when the subject of Kmart came up, we asked
you to request that the Inspection Department go out to the Kmart
store on Farmington. Have we heard back from them on that?
Mr. Shane: We sent the letter, but we haven't heard back yet.
Mrs. Blomberg: Regarding the Little Caesar's sign again, there is no plan of
having an entrance into the part of the Little Caesar's restaurant
from outdoors?
Mr. Wargo: That is correct. The entrance is from the main entrance of the store.
It is primarily for the shoppers, yes.
Mrs. Blomberg: Just a few weeks ago we had a store come before us that wanted a
small Mc'Donald's, and at that time we asked the same question, "will
you have an outside sign". I guess I'm questioning this sign also.
Is there any way it could be eliminated?
Mr. Wargo: I could ask them, but I am quite sure they would fight it.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, do we have any precedent like that in the City? I
don't recall any ancillary uses of restaurants within stores of this
type having exterior signage.
Mr. Shane: Not that I recall.
14266
Mr. Engebretson: So this would be setting a precedent.
Mr. Morrow: What about Livonia Mall? Isn't there a Little Caesar's behind Sear's
receiving area that has an outside sign?
New
Mr. Shane: Yes, but that's a separate unit, not part of Livonia Mall per se.
Mr. TaPi_ne: This Kmart is a separate unit in that shopping center, isn't it?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Anything you want to add, Sir?
Mr. Wargo: No.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and approved, it was
#6-129-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Kmart Corporation
requesting approval for signage for the store located at 30255
Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, be approved subject
to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Kmart/Jerry Wargo, received by the
Planning Commission on May 31, 1995, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except for the fact that the 14 sq. ft. Kmart logo
over the signage "Pharmacy", "Garden Shop" and "Auto Service" is
to be eliminated.
Mr. LaPine: I will probably vote for the proposal, but I hope in a couple of
months from now we don't get a proposal in from Seven Mile and
Farmington that they want a Little Cesar's sign in front of their
building because they have one on Plymouth Road.
Mr. Ehgebretson: They probably will.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Blomberg, Engebretson.
ABSENT: None
Mr. Ehgebretson: The last item on the agenda is the annual election of officers.
The first order of business is to fill the position of Chairman. Each
of you have ballets in front of you and nominations are in order. No
support is needed.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to nominate Mr. Engebretson for Chairman.
Mr. Ehgebretson: Any others? (none) We will close the nomination for Chairman.
We don't have to have a vote. For Vice Chairman?
Mr. McCann: I nominate Mr. TaPine.
14267
Mr. Engebretson: Any others? (none) We will close the nomination for Vice
Chairman. For the position of Secretary?
Mr. Morrow: I would like to offer Bob Alanskas for Secretary.
�,. Mr. Engebretson: Any others? (none) We will close the nominations for Secretary.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was
#6-130-95 RESOLVED that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of
Article II of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, the
following officers were elected to the Planning Commission for the
period commencing July 1995 to June 1996.
Chairman: Jack Engebretson
Vice Chairman: William LaPine
Secretary: Robert Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared each of the officers duly elected to the
Planning Commission for the period July 1995 to June 1996.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 706th Regular Meeting
held on June 27, 1995 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
{ j
R. Lee Morrow, Secretary
ATT'ES'T: L ' / (1.-N
Jack Engehre 4n, Chairman
jg
No..