HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-04-25 14027
MINUTES OF THE 702nd REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
\..
On Tuesday, April 25, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 702nd 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 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow William Tapine
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: James C. McCann
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
'Nowtonight.
Mayor Bennett presented a Pin to Lee Morrow in recognition of 20 years of service
to the City.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-2-13
by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting
waiver use approval to construct a retail building in excess of
30,000 square feet to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway
between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road 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.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We have also received
a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following
deficiencies were found: 1. Deficient front yard setback.
Required 100', provided 70'. 2. Deficient parking spaces.
Required 788 spaces, provided 749 spaces. 3. Deficient parking
space width, 10' width required. Provided 749 spaces, 490 spaces
- 10' in width; 259 spaces - 9' in width. They end by saying
this proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals granting relief from the above requirements.
14028
We also received a letter from the Tandy Corporation who wanted
the letter read into the record. This letter was addressed to
myself and is re: Incredible Universe and reads as follows: "At
the request of Mr. David Johnson, I am forwarding you this letter
of explanation regarding our proposed Incredible Universe
Electronic Center. When Tandy Corporation created this facility,
we patented a system for the electronics distribution part of our
project. The system is an internal operating system, designed to
function solely on behalf of the existing physical center. In
other words, the patented electronics distribution system would
service only our Livonia location. It is an internal operating
system designed to support the other operating divisions at our
electronic center. We have no intention, nor capability under
the system, to service other divisions of Tandy Corporation, nor
any other Incredible Universe location. This system is a very
high-tech, advanced, distribution-type system, far ahead of any
counterpart, and we are very proud of our accomplishments in this
area. We are excited about the possibility of coming to your
great city and look forward to the opportunity to present this
operation to you in person. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation. If I may be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact me." This letter was signed by Bryan L.
Spain, Director of Real Estate, Tandy Corporation.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make your
presentation.
David Johnson, Chairman of Victor International: Also with me tonight is Bryan
Spain, Director of Real Estate for Tandy, and Charles Hodges, the
Architect for Tandy. Ten years ago is when we started this
project and I feel it would be appropriate to go through a little
bit of the past and then where we started 18 month ago with this
particular site.
This is a site plan that was involved with the original zoning
which was submitted in 1985 and finalized in 1986. (He displayed
the plan) It provided for three million square feet of office
and an infrastructure that would support three million square
feet of office. It provided for an eight-story hotel, and
high-rise, twelve-story office throughout this area, which later
became the Digital site. The pond was built. All the
infrastructure throughout the development was built at our
expense. There were no tax abatements or no credits of any kind.
All utilities were extended for a mile from Seven Mile to Eight
Mile and out to Newburgh Road and were completed to support that
density.
In 1988 this was modified with the introduction of the Hillman
Company, a national office building developer, and the Embassy
Suites location sat in this area. (He pointed this area out)
Digital had been put in place and the 25 acre piece to the north,
overall 104 acres. I might point out that in the original site
of the 104 acres, there were five restaurants in that which
totaled about 15 acres. In this site plan we concentrated and
14029
defined the high-rise office and the office plan to project the
restaurant down here, which ultimately became Cantina Del Rio.
This was a site plan for 750,000 square feet of office with 2500
v.. car parking in this 15 acre parcel. The #5 office building has
now been built and we have 18 acres of office up in here. The
site plan for 15 acres then proceeded for that particular section
and was redefined with the 2500 car parking and three different
office buildings.
As the office market deteriorated and we had built the #5
building, we redefined the parking and in 1993, staying
consistent with the office concept of the park but concentrating
the commercial in one spot instead of spreading it throughout the
development, we revised the master plan and submitted a Builders
Square concept and redefined the office and downsized the office
areas that were in the rest of the development. After about six
months of working with everybody and hearing the residents'
resistance to the Builders Square proposal, we agreed to withdraw
the proposal and seek another commercial user that would be more
compatible with office, that would have more corporate strength
than Kmart and Builders Square were reviewed to have at that
time, and also that would be more counter-cyclical to traffic
patterns. We now, a few months later, are proud to present a
site plan for Incredible Universe, which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Tandy Corporation, which is really a Macys of
the electronic business. We think it is representative of the
future, and it is not a concept that exists anywhere around
there. The home improvement concept, there were a number of
competitors like Home Depot and Home Quarters. Even after we
were through with Builders Square, Home Quarters came into the
area. When we went through with the Lone Star Steakhouse
approvals and brought in Champps, and after discussion with the
Planning Commission and resistance to late hours of operation of
some of the restaurants, we went and focused on a single user
retail center that would be compatible with office and also an
asset to the area. I would like to have Bryan Spain, at this
point, present the site plan.
Bryan Spain: I do appreciate very much the opportunity to be here before you
tonight to present the Incredible Universe. The Incredible
Universe is a mastermind of our Chairman John Roache, whom I have
a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for. I would like
to walk you through how it evolved. Most of you probably know
the Tandy Corporation via Radio Shack, and I say that in hopes
that you have shopped, are still shopping, and Christmas is not
very far away. We have found in the past probably four to five
years prior to this time we manufactured approximately 80% to 85%
of all products that were sold within a Radio Shack store. That
concept of private label selling just no longer was working in
today's current market so our Chairman went to work to set out to
devise a new future and a new program for Tandy Corporation. In
so doing in 1992 we divested ourselves of virtually 95% of our
manufacturing. We channeled all our efforts to two new retail
14030
operations and the most magnificent of which is the Incredible
Universe.
Incredible Universe is like a mall under one roof. It is an
1400' interior operation. It is designed solely inside the store. We
sent a team of market researcher executives around the country,
at a great deal of expense, to find out exactly what the shoppers
wanted in today's market in the next decade. We found out five
major things. They wanted ease of shopping. They wanted
convenience. They wanted a good quantity or selection. They
wanted a good price, and they wanted to have fun. What we did
was set out to try to answer those five wants. We did that by
first off hiring one of the executives from Disney Corporation to
come train us, to teach us haw to let the customer enjoy itself,
haw to have fun.
Secondly, we decided we were going to have a selection, and we do
have a selection. We have some 85,000 different products within
our store.
We tried to find out how can we service the customer? Haw can we
be the best at what we want to do? We patterned a distribution
system. It is an internal distribution system as you heard in my
letter. It is hard to explain but I will try to do it like this.
The sales people out on the floor have a computer on their wrist.
When you come in to our store to shop, you are identified on this
computer. If you buy a piece of merchandise, it radios back to
the distribution system and that product is waiting for you at
\.. the counter automatically, never touched by human hands. The
system works strictly internal to our store, and as I said we are
very proud of it. It makes it so a customer can be in and out of
our store in 15 minutes. That is not the case. Our demographic
studies tell us the normal customer spends two to three hours in
the store. We encourage you to play with the merchandise. We
encourage you to pick it up, feel of it, use it, operate it. The
problem with my generation and those alike is we have
inhabitations about electronics that we are afraid that we are
going to break them. That is the whole idea to use it to find
out you won't break it.
That is a little bit about the store. We have another area that
I want to stress and that is we will bring some 350 employe
into the store. They will all be hired locally. We will bring
one person in and he will be a manager from another store. The
only reason he will be brought in is simply because he was
trained in another store and he understands the operation. All
the rest would be hired locally and they will be trained as we
will be building the store. The internal operations of the store
consist of such that we have to spend 10%, it is mandatory in all
our stores, that we spend 10% a month in a training center. We
have a separate segment of our store that is involved, the
mezzanine as well as some lower area, where we go through quite
ti,,
14031
extensive training. Manufacturers help us in this respect
because they want to market their products so they train our
employccs themselves.
That brings us to another
ng point. We don't have commission
salesmen. It is not high pressure. It is not a discount. It is
not a volume type sales. What we have tried to do is bring the
CES show, the Consumer Electronic Shaw, which sells twice a year,
under one roof, coupled with our distribution operation, coupled
with our service operation. We service everything we sell.
Absolutely, if you need it fixed, right there on location, all
done inside the mall under one roof. We looked very heavily
around the country. We did a tremendous survey to what customers
wanted and we did surveys to what customers we wanted to appeal
to. I want to say I am very proud of your City for you because
Livonia was one of the top 20 cities and locations in the United
States of America that we looked at. You are a very well
educated group, good income level, a very nice community, and we
would like to be an asset and part of that community. We do
that by coming in and we will work with the local citizens. We
have a 8,000 square foot rotunda in the middle of the store. It
is coupled with a $300,000 audio/video system such that local
community activities can utilize this rotunda for their awards
ceremonies and things such as this.
I would venture to say that to give you an example of one of our
stores in Tempe, Arizona, we were written up in the newspaper.
They had a magnate school system. They did not have computers in
their school system for their children. Our manager worked an
`"' arrangement with them whereby he opened the store up for an hour
each evening just for these children to come in and use our
computers that we had on demonstration to run their programs.
The newspapers out there were highly appreciative of it as were
the citizens. We believe in being a part of the community. That
is us. We realize when we come into your area, we have to be a
part of you because we want you to come and enjoy our store. We
do have a lot of fun. We try to create a lot of interesting
things to do, a lot of activities, and we draw a lot of interest.
We will, in fact, bring a large tax base to your area, and that
is a very positive thing when you think about it from the school
system, for example. We add a large property tax base and yet we
don't increase enrollment so we don't do anything but enrich and
enhance your schools for the pupils that are already there.
The other thing that is very interesting, and this to me is a
surprising aspect, we not only appeal to the family shopping, but
a large percentage of our sales come from businesses. For
example, I told you our Tempe store, I mentioned it is located in
a residential area. They are very happy with us. We work with
the local residents to meet with them, to address their needs.
Our architect, Charles Hodges, is here with me tonight to answer
some questions. He did an excellent job. We actually built a
14032
a wall. We worked a lighting scheme out. His company did a
tremendous job in working a landscape buffer and the residents
are extremely happy with it. On the converse in Columbus, Ohio,
`.• we are up against an office tower. They are extremely happy
about us being there because they utilize our business products.
We do have a large variety of business products. We do a
tremendous amount of our sales, a high percentage of our sales
volume, goes to the business market. We absolutely appeal to
them. We carry every type of computer imaginable, every type of
computer paraphernalia, every type of machines and telephone
systems and networking systems. We try to appeal to all segments
of the market.
Another interesting fact, I think, we have for example in our
Indianapolis store, there are two hotels right adjacent to us, a
Holiday Inn and a Ramada Inn. They are very, very excited about
us being there because our studies prove we have a lot of traffic
that comes in from out of town, overnight, just to see our store
and to shop there. They spend the night and utilize the hotels.
Another city that I can't name, simply because we haven't put it
together yet, there is a hotel across the street from us. They
came to the Planning Commission meeting and spoke in favor of us.
They were excited about us coming there. As a matter of fact, at
two other locations that we are looking at around the country we
are going to buy the property from Marriott and share the
courtyard hotel with one of them and a possible high-rise hotel
with another one.
We are very excited about our store. It is the up-and-coming
thing for the next decade. Tandy Corporation has been around
since 1967. We are approaching five billion in sales. Tast year
it was 4.9 billion. We expect to go above five and possibly six.
We are approaching two billion in assets. We are a very
cash-rich, debt-free corporation. We changed our focus to our
retail concept. We have gone away from the manufacturing. We
are selling products that everyone makes. It is a very exciting
time for us and we look forward to having the opportunity to
bringing this store to you. I will stop there and allow you to
ask me some questions, and I am sure some of you probably have
some.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Spain, it seems to me that during our study session we were
told Tandy gets involved with the community and has certain fund
raising things. Is that something we could look forward to?
Mr. Spain: I would like to address that in this manner. Let me describe to
you what we have done in the past, and I don't know of any change
in that concept other than to enhance it. In normal times, with
the nine stores that we currently have open, we have a gala grand
opening the night before we actually open to the public. It is a
VIP grand opening. We will have auctions on merchandise such as
footballs signed by famous people, and that sort of thing. Those
proceeds are turned over to local charities. On grand opening
14033
day we take a percentage of sales and Tandy Corporation has been
gracious enough to match that percentage of sales and that too is
turned over to local charities. We do that to try to enhance our
coming into a community. We want to be a part of that, and then
obviously, we continue our growth with the charitable
organizations as we move forward.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any problems with your other nine stores as far as
parking?
Mr. Spain: No sir. Mr. Shane indicated there will be a variance required.
We use nine foot parking spaces in all of our stores throughout
the country. This would be the first store where we would be
attempting to go to the ten foot parking space, at your request.
Parking has never been a problem, other than most cities claim we
have too much parking space. The reason we do that is we don't
want to cause a traffic problem. While we are talking about
that, let me address the traffic issue. In our studies we have
found that we are actually complimentary to your traffic in that
our stores don't open until eleven o'clock so we don't create any
a.m. traffic problems during your peak traffic time. The peak
hours of our traffic are actually seven o'clock in the evening,
after most traffic has thinned out from the p.m. traffic time.
We actually pull traffic off the road during the p.m. traffic
time so that we enhance the traffic area.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is we show here that you have 783 parking spaces
and if your average customer spends three hours, are you saying
\r. you would be at full capacity for three hours?
Mr. Spain: When I say the average customer, you have to understand the trip
generation is back and forth, but let's assume the average car
would bring two to three people. We would never have more than
2,000 in the store at one time so I would say we would more than
adequately be able to handle it with what we have.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any location where you have a situation like you have
at this Victor Park location where you only have two ways to get
into that facility, either off Seven Mile Road or Eight Mile
Road?
Mr. Spain: Yes in Hollywood, Florida we only have a singular access. It is
a six-lane access in and out but there is only singular access
there. In Tempe there are only two approaches.
Mr. TaPine: At that location, how many cars do you figure will travel that
road at any one period of time, say your peak hours?
Mr. Spain: Let me say that our normal traffic count during the weekdays
would be about 3,000 cars for the whole day. That is for a 10-12
hour period.
14034
Mr. LaPine: On Seven Mile Road cars would have to back up to make a left hand
turn coming off the expressway going east into Victor Parkway.
Do you have that much traffic at the light as it sits now? It
could be changed I assume. I was out there the other morning and
I just sat there and it looks like there is a lot of traffic that
makes a left hand turn off Seven Mile Road going east, cuts down
the parkway and comes out to Newburgh Road so they don't have to
wait at the light at Seven Mile and Newburgh. I understand you
said there is no traffic before eleven o'clock. What time in the
morning does the truck traffic come in?
Mr. Spain: We have the ability to regulate that. I didn't really discuss
that with you. For example, there will be no truck traffic on
the weekends. We just don't accept truck deliveries on the
weekend. There are no trucks left there overnight. We do use a
pro-typical building. We have never to this point deviated from
that prototype concept, and the reason being we are using
national advertising. With national advertising you need to
maintain that framework. We have done that with Radio Shack. We
have been very successful in that respect. Thus far we have
tried to address some of the concerns that we have heard from
members of the Commission and we found you do not like tilt-wall
construction so we are going to do away with that. We are going
to use split-face brick construction. We have never done that
before but we are willing to make that concession for you.
Secondly, I understand there was a concern about having eight
truck docks. Again, we are proud of our distribution system but
to try to address it and enhance the City's wishes, we are going
to lower it to six truck docks. There will be no trucks left
there overnight. Trucks can be regulated as to their time of
delivery. What we would most likely do, at your request, is
mandate that all deliveries begin at nine o'clock or later so we
don't hit your peak a.m. traffic.
Mr. LaPine: There is a condominium development off Eight Mile Road, which
there is access from Eight Mile Road into the parkway from that
way. Can the trucks be told they can't use the Eight Mile Road
entrance?
Mr. Spain: Absolutely. We did this in Tempe. We were adjacent to a
condominium area in Tempe. What we have done is put all our
truck traffic on notice that they will not enter into the
residential area. We have not had one complaint to date
regarding that problem.
Mr. LaPine: I have lots of questions but for right now that is all I will
ask.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will Tandy buy or lease this property?
Mr. Spain: We will be purchasing it.
14035
Mr. Piercecchi: When Lee Morrow and myself were at the site on Sunday, he brought
up an interesting point. You went through some of it by showing
some of the different stages that this particular piece has gone
through, and we were wondering what was the traffic impact on
this site as compared to some of the previous plans such as the
office complexes?
Mr. Johnson: In January of 1986 there was a traffic study submitted with the
zoning that showed with 1,250,000 square feet and a hotel in
place and restaurants there would be 2580 cars entering in the
a.m. peak hour and 577 cars coming out in the a.m. peak hour.
This would not affect the a.m. peak hour at all. It has been
Tandy's experience at their other locations that it also pulls
away from the peak hour in the evening where people are diverted
from the office buildings into the store or out of restaurants
into the store so it has become a counter-cyclical use. More
specifically on this particular site, the previous site plan for
this site had 2500 cars approved in the master plan in a
three-story parking deck. That parking deck abutted the front of
Embassy Suites and now the 2500 cars has been replaced by 788.
Mr. Piercecchi: So this is an improvement over the previous plan?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct. It has gone down about one-third of what was
previous approved for this site specifically.
Mr. Piercecchi: It was mentioned earlier by the other gentleman's presentation
about where the customers are drawn from. What is really the
�.. radius of the draw for this type of facility?
Mr. Spain: The effective radius that we actually look at for our demographic
studies starts at a five mile radius and then we graduate to a
ten mile radius and then we look, quite frankly we look out at
fifteen, although the majority of our traffic would come from a
ten mile radius or within.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed in our notes from the Planning Department that there is
no method presented in reference to trash removal. Has that been
worked out?
Mr. Shane: On the revised plan there is a trash dumpster location.
Mr. Piercecchi: Last but not least, as you may know, our Chairman and board is
really quite fixed on ten foot parking, double striped. There
are a lot of big cars in the Detroit area. At the preliminary
meeting when we met with you gentlemen you talked about having
for your customers ten foot spaces but for employe nine foot.
Can that be worked out?
Mr. Spain: We are addressing that right now on the site plan. As a matter
of fact, I think the site plan that you are looking at has ten
foot parking spaces in the front where we expect the majority of
14036
our customers to park. The area surrounding the building has
nine foot parking spaces that we would expect for our employe
to use.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you are going to have 350 employees there?
Mr. Spain: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage would be full time?
Mr. Spain: That is full time. We will have as many as 400. We hire a lot
of part-time employees obviously during Christmas season, and I
might add to that too, we hire a lot of young people and we offer
through the company, through the Incredible Universe division,
they have incentives for them to pay their college tuition for
working there. We have programs to enhance their educational
level. We want to make productive young people out of them.
Mr. Alanskas: Your other stores, do they all have small restaurants inside?
Mr. Spain: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Are they used that much?
Mr. Spain: When we first started the concept of having a small restaurant or
eatery in the electronic center itself, if you have customers
staying sometimes for two to three hours, they obviously want
refreshments. We looked at several concepts to decide what we
were going to put in there. We did not start out with McDonalds
but McDonalds came into about our third or fourth store, I don't
know exactly which. After they had been open for a month inside
the store, they came to us and asked us to enter into a national
contract so they could be in every store that we put in
throughout the country. They are very pleased with what they
have.
Mr. Alanskas: Do your customers walk through the store eating and drinking?
Mr. Spain: I can't sit here Mr. Alanskas and tell you that somebody might
not finish their coke but it would be a very small percentage.
Mr. raPine: When you say you are going to hire 350 full time local employees,
are we talking about Livonia residents or surrounding area?
Mr. Spain: I would venture to guess the majority of them would come from
Livonia. Again, I can't tell you that if somebody came in from
outside in the Detroit area and wanted to work in there, that
they couldn't, but it has been our experience that the local city
supports the store that is there.
Mr. LaPine: Of those 350 full-time employees, haw many of them would be on
the day shift coming in at the eleven o'clock hour?
14037
Mr. Spain: Obviously that is not our peak shopping time. That is really
more of an operational question Mr. LaPine. I don't want to sit
here and give you any misinformation but it just stands to reason
`�.. to me that our peak periods are when we are going to have our
peak employment. The majority of them I would think would
probably come to work later on in the afternoon.
Mr. rapine: I guess the point I am making is we don't have public
transportation and in the Detroit metropolitan area almost
everybody drives to work in their car, one person in a car, which
makes me believe if you have 200 employccs there at one time, we
have a potential of having 200 cars just for the employccs only.
Mr. Spain: The beauty of that is they would come at your off-peak time so we
wouldn't be adding 200 cars to your peak traffic period.
Mr. LaPine: I am not talking about traffic. I am talking about parking.
Mr. Spain: We ask our employees to utilize the back parking area.
Mr. LaPine: The parking number I have heard here tonight, 700 and some odd
parking, that includes employee parking I assume?
Mr. Spain: Yes it does.
Mr. LaPine: So if you have 200 employees with 700 parking spaces, that leaves
500.
Mr. Spain: It leaves approximately 588, somewhere in that area.
Mr. rapine: The next question I have, this is a big building, 184,200 square
foot.
Mr. Spain: The footprint of the building actually doesn't go that high but
in total square footage yes sir we do have our training center on
the mezzanine as a separate center within the store.
Mr. LaPine: It is a large building?
Mr. Spain: Yes sir it is.
Mr. LaPine: Basically it is classified as a general commercial building?
Mr. Spain: Right.
Mr. LaPine: I guess my question is, assuming the worse could happen and this
location does not work out, it does not materialize, or after a
number of years there the parent company feels the profits they
are making on the investment are not there, and the building goes
under, could you give me an idea of what could go into a 184,200
square foot building?
14038
Mr. Johnson: One of the things that attracted us originally to the Builders
Square concept was the fact that it was the same size footprint
of 150,000 feet, that it was a single corporate user, and that
;`r, the building would control, with deed restrictions and other
operational restrictions of the controls you can put on one
occupant, one tenant. The CBS Fox operation, which is bigger
than this, is a good example of what can go into that type of
store footage as a high-tech user. This is easily convertible
into a high-tech use. We feel it is definitely more compatible
with the office and more consistent with the area and our ability
to control the design than if we had ten retail tenants in there.
Mr. LaPine: If this operation did not make it, can it be converted and you
could put ten retail operations in it?
Mr. Johnson: It could be converted to ten retail operations today. I think it
is important to point out that they came here with the property
currently zoned C-2 and did not come and seek rezoning of the
property. This has a history that goes along with it as well as
a history of Embassy Suites that goes along with it.
Mr. TaPine: I agree with you they have the zoning. Quite frankly, I think
the City made a big mistake, a big mistake, to rezone it to C-2.
We should have held our guns for the original proposal you
brought before us. I understand we are going to get something in
there that is C-2 but I want to make sure I am going to get the
best deal.
`�r. Mr. Johnson: I think it is important to point out Mr. TaPine that Tandy came
here with the zoning in place. I think it is also important to
point out that we submitted a proposal 18 months ago that had a
Builders Square where it had a first class exterior, the best
Builders Square had done in the United States. Based on input
and concerns from residents, we withdrew the proposal to look for
a more compatible retail user. The amount of the total retail
acreage is consistent with the original master plan. It is just
segregated into one spot. We feel this is an excellent use.
Over 50% of their business sales are to businesses. They are an
ideal office compatible user. They are not a discount,
warehouse, retail operation, and we are proud to have them as a
proposed user.
Mr. LaPine: In our notes it states there is a possibility that the Texas
steakhouse will not be built now?
Mr. Johnson: It is still going to be built, the Lone Star.
Mr. TaPine: The other question I had, when we originally discussed this we
talked about ten truck wells, then I saw eight and now it is down
to six. Is six going to be the final count?
Mr. Johnson: Yes sir.
14039
Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as many questions were directed regarding the employees,
can I ask what the wage scale will be for these employees?
_tow_ Mr. Spain: Let me answer that by saying we would probably have four and a
half million plus payroll annually for total employment. That is
pretty much an estimate. I know that to be the current level.
It would depend upon the wage scale here versus other parts of
the country but that is pretty much the average throughout the
country.
Mr. Piercecchi: It will be compatible with automobile wages?
Mr. Spain: I don't have any further breakdown. That is more operational
oriented and I am in the real estate section.
Mr. Piercecchi: We are not talking minimum wage?
Mr. Spain: No sir. And again we are not talking commission salesmen. We
are talking people that are on the payroll. Add to that we have
some pretty substantial corporate benefits in the form of
insurance, in the form of tuition reimbursements, in the form of
vacations, sick pay, etc. We are a very sturdy corporation and I
think we operate in all 50 states throughout the country and have
been since 1967. Mr. TaPine let me give you a little bit of
comfort if I may from the standpoint the stores we have opened
already have far exceeded our greatest, grandest expectations as
to what they would do. As such we are moving forward to open
eight stores in 1985, ten stores in 1996 and we are projecting
Niro. even more in 1997. We see this as being a very profitable, good
type operation. It is being well received in the communities
that we have put in it. Another concern I would like to address,
just in case there are some neighborhood residents here, we are a
family oriented type of retail operation but all the activities
go on inside the confines of the store. We fit well within the
community in that we are not doing sales out of the parking lot.
We are not having extensions all over the building and what have
you. It is a very clean, quiet type operation. We resemble that
of a small manufacturer with the exception we don't put the
demands on the utilities, we don't create any environmental
problems and yet we employ some 350 to 400 of your local
citizens. We are very excited about coming here. We will try to
do everything we can to make this the type of operation you would
like to have and be proud to have in your City, and I can assure
you, obviously it is my word, that we have had nothing but
accolades from the towns and cities that we currently exist in.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we look at the plans I would like to ask you to set the
stage by telling us if this were approved, what would your
initial investment be in this facility?
Mr. Spain: Probably in the total facility we are probably looking at land
and building in the neighborhood of twelve to fifteen million.
14040
Mr. Engebretson: How much inventory would you carry in the store?
Mr. Spain: That is a difficult thing to say. Approximately eight to ten
gin. million.
Mr. Engebretson: What would the average sales be at this type of store on an
annual basis?
Mr. Spain: We annually figure our sales to run between sixty and eighty
million, shaded to the eighty million, which obviously brings a
lot of tax revenue into the City.
Mr. Engebretson: With that the developer will get into the elevation presentation
and landscape plan.
Mr. Johnson: I would like to introduce Charles Hodges of Hodges & Associates.
He is going to go through the elevations, site lines from 275 and
the landscape plan.
Charles Hodges, 13642 Omega, Dallas, Texas: (He presented the site plan,
elevations plans and landscaping.)
Mr. Alanskas: What is the height of the building?
Mr. Hodges: Overall height including the parapet screening is approximately
31 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Haw wide is the color striping?
`�.. Mr. Hodges: It has been reduced in this case to an 8 foot strip.
Mrs. Blomberg: Will there be any type of installation done at this location like
for stereos for cars?
Mr. Hodges: We have a small area where car cellular phones, mobile phones,
can be installed and upscale car stereos. We have the capability
for them to pull entirely within the building and do the
installation at that point. We also have technical services
within another sector of the building which when you mention
installation, for reconfiguration of a computer system, as you
select your computer system it actually customizes it as to how
much RAM or what software packages you want loaded, and that is a
technical services area, which is a separate function.
Mr. Morrow: On the subject of the service doors for the stereo systems, one
of the things we request be part of the record, whether it is
Tandy Corporation or your local tire store, we let the record
show that we like those doors kept closed particularly if they
are in the front yard of a particular site. I don't know if you
could do that Mr. Hodges but we would like some kind of
concurrence either from Mr. Spain or Mr. Johnson if we could.
Also, I think on one elevation you showed there was a reduction
in the number of doors shown on the drawing.
14041
Mr. Hodges: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: Is our staff in possession of the completed plan?
`r. Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: So we have the technical correct plan?
Mr. Shane: Yes we do.
Mr. TaPine: The east elevation, that is just a stark wall and that would face
Victor Parkway? Is that correct?
Mr. Hodges: Actually it has an approximate 25 foot break in the wall.
Mr. LaPine: No windows and no doors along there?
Mr. Hodges: There are several doors located within this but there are no
glass areas.
Mr. TaPine: Are those doors entries?
Mr. Hodges: No sir. Exit doors only.
Mr. TaPine: That stark wall faces Victor Parkway?
Mr. Hodges: That is correct, behind two levels of landscaping.
‘41111N. Mr. LaPine: The north elevation, another stark wall, faces Embassy Suites?
Mr. Hodges: There is about a 35 foot offset.
Mr. TaPine: But basically it is a wall.
Mr. Hodges: Yes sir. I might point out that the landscaping area, which we
incorporated in this particular area, is 45 feet of landscape
buffer. It tapers down but it is 45 feet.
Mr. LaPine: So the entrance into the establishment is from the south?
Mr. Hodges: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: One of the questions we normally get into when we have a large
roofed area like this as far as any type of mountings on the roof
of the building, how they would interact as far as being screened
from the community.
Mr. Hodges: We have a site line study which we have incorporated in our
package and has been reviewed by staff from both the I-96 and
Victor Parkway. Our parapet extends above the building in some
places as high as seven feet. The distance that you would have
to be out to have one of those visible would be several hundred
14042
feet. Of course, there are tree coverings and a lot of other
things that would permit that from occurring. We come up to at
least the top of the units themselves so there is no chance from
Victor Parkway or anywhere adjacent to the building, including
the Embassy Suites, where you would be able to see them. In this
particular case we show visibility distance from Victor Parkway
of approximately 620 lineal feet before that unit would be
visible. From the interstate side it is approximately 950 feet.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed in the notes we have that the utility poles for lights
in the park are 40 feet high. We normally don't have anything
over 20 feet. Why are they 40 feet high? Haw many of those 40
foot high poles will you have and how long will those lights stay
on?
Mr. Hodges: I guess the best answer to why they are 40 feet is because we can
have a lot fewer poles by virtue of that. Secondly, the
philosophy of Incredible Universe is certainly customer safety.
Approximately two months ago there was an article in USA Today
where 63% of the people polled said they would no longer go out
shopping at night because of the fear of crime. We do illuminate
our central parking area with a good lighting distribution, and a
simple answer to your question Mr. LaPine is the taller the
poles, the fewer the poles. Forty feet is not an excessive
height when you consider that the distribution for this
particular area, we try to keep that a good intensity without a
sea of light poles out there.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know how many of those light poles you will have?
Mr. Hodges: Yes sir. We have identified them. In the front field of parking
I believe there are five. Let me just check.
Mr. Johnson: The lights around Victor Parkway are 30 foot high.
Mr. Hodges: There are eight poles total. I might want to refer back, I
believe Mr. Morrow asked the question, our site plan does
incorporate from this line forward all ten foot wide parking
spaces. I drive a Suburban so I certainly understand. In other
cities we have not had a problem with that but in this particular
case, per your request, we will have the ten foot wide spaces.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak
for or against this proposal.
Stephen Bromberg: I am with the law firm of Butzel Long. My address is 32270
Telegraph Road, Southfield. I appear on behalf of the Embassy
Suites Hotel. You will recall that I appeared on behalf of the
Embassy Suites on January 11, 1994 in front of this body. That
evening we opposed vehemently the rezoning of this property, and
we went into great detail giving both practical and legal
arguments as to the reasoning, so I am not going to repeat what I
14043
did then. However, I should inform you that we are carrying
forward with our position that the C-2 zoning was
unconstitutional. Litigation is now pending before Judge Cynthia
Stevens in the Wayne County Circuit Court in which we are
challenging that zoning. We intend to pursue that challenge.
We believe we have a legitimate position. We detailed the
reasons for you then, everything fLom the unreasonability to the
violation of your own master plan. We cited the case law which
indicated, for example, that doing something in terms of rezoning
simply for the benefit of economics of the owner at a particular
time is not a basis for rezoning. We believe we have a sound
basis. That is pending.
Assuming that we are successful, while this has been a very nice
presentation, the building, if they were to go ahead with it,
would be in a position of being on a property for which it is not
properly zoned and in that instance would be torn down, so there
is great risk for that to proceed, and I emphasize that because
that is our concern.
We are not concerned about anything other than getting what we
believed we had in the initial instance, which is an office park,
which would supply the base for the Embassy Suites Hotel, which
also was a very substantial expenditure in the range of ten
million dollars, as you will recall.
In 1994 when we were looking at this with the Builders Square,
the number of square feet in that retail operation, as I
*11.. understood it, was approximately 110,000 square feet. We are now
talking about a prototype store, and indeed in the 10K filed by
the Tandy Corporation with the FCC, they say that this is a
standard store of some 184,000 feet and they also say that it is
a standard practice that they will have some 85,000 different
stock keeping units, so I am assuming that phrase means there
will be 85,000 types of consumer electronics and appliances. I
will just read this so it is clear. "Incredible Universe, which
is an assumed name for a division of Tandy Corporation, is a new
concept in the retailing and name brand consumer electronics and
appliances. These stores are approximately 184,000 square feet
in size. They carry over 85,000 stock keeping units, which
provide the customers with a 'universe' of choices." My point is
that we are being faced again tonight with exactly the same kind
of wolf, maybe in sheep's clothing, but it is the same wolf. We
still have a retail store. We have a retail store which is going
to draw a great number of people. We have a sea of concrete for
parking lot. We have a very different situation than the office
park that was originally presented and structured and it is a
situation where we have comparable sales people coming in, making
retail purchases, and going out. It is going to be that kind of
a situation. We believe that this is not compatible with the
office park concept and we also believe strongly that to put this
building in this location will render it very difficult, if not
14044
impossible, to go forward with construction of office buildings
in the rest of the park at a time when we are now able to
establish, without any doubt whatever, that the office market has
NIMBIchanged dramatically, that the office market is such that,
particularly along the I-275 corridor, there is no open office
space. We will be able to present in the litigation the
testimony that Mr. Joe Feldman, who produces a semi-annual report
for the benefit of the entire city in which he states that this
is a remarkable area in terms of what has happened and believes
there will be speculative office building along this area. He
finds it, however, incredible that the "hodge podge" as he put
it, those are his words not mine, of what is happening in this
area is being permitted to occur.
The standards which you are dealing with tonight are in Section
19.06 of your ordinance. These are the waiver use approval
standards and it says that the waiver use approval must comply
with all the following general standards: Subparagraph (a) The
proposed use must be of such location, size and character that it
will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development
of the surrounding neighborhood. Subparagraph (b) similarly the
traffic to and fium the use and uses, and the assembly of persons
in connection therewith, will not be hazardous or inconvenient to
the neighborhood nor unduly conflict with the normal traffic of
the neighborhood. Then Subparagraph (c) this use will not have a
detrimental effect upon the neighboring property nor interfere
with or discourage the appropriate development and use of
adjacent land or buildings or unreasonably affect their value. I
1.1111.• point out to you that on January 11, 1994 this Planning
Commission, in discussing this, unanimously approved a resolution
rejecting the rezoning and in subparagraph (3) of that resolution
said that the Victor Corporate road system was not designed to
accommodate the commercial traffic generated by uses permitted in
the C-2 zoning district. That is your finding within the last
year. Subparagraph (4) That the proposed changed of zoning is
incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding, existing
and proposed uses and zoning districts in the area. So
therefore, in these resolutions passed on January 11, 1994 this
body found that the first three standards for the waiver of use
approval were not met. I submit that they are still not met.
I am finding difficulty understanding the parking provisions in
your ordinance. I looked at Section 11.03 (p)(2), it refers me
back to 18.38(25) . I looked at 18.38(25) and it tells me that
there is one parking space for each 125 square feet of space in
buildings which are of this nature, over 30,000 square feet. I
divide that into 184,200 and I come up with 1473 spaces. Clearly
I do not understand your ordinance in this area because I am
hearing all kinds of different figures for parking. I got a copy
of what I thought was a site plan from the Planning Department.
That documents shows 945 spaces. I am hearing tonight figures
ti.►
14045
going down into the 700s. Apparently there are certain
variations for certain types of uses. I think it should be
examined, at least, and determined what is correct in this
regard. Regardless, it is a hell of a lot of parking spaces.
The plan which I got from the Planning Department contains a
reference at the southeast corner of this area to a restaurant of
5700 square feet. Do I assume correctly that this is no longer a
part of the plan, that this has been replaced by something that
provides for a restaurant within the premises?
Mr. Shane: The Lone Star Steakhouse restaurant, which shows on the plan, is
still a part of the plan. In addition to that, the Incredible
Universe also has a restaurant operation as part of their
internal operation.
Mr. Bromberg: I point out to you, with all due respect, a provision in
11.03(p)(4) of your ordinance which talks about buildings of over
30,000 square feet of this type and I read to you under
subparagraph (4) Restaurant uses as defined in Section 2.08 of
this ordinance shall be permitted as an accessory use to a single
unit building only; provided, however, that the number of
customer seats in the restaurant shall not exceed 30.
Mr. Shane: That is right.
Mr. Bromberg: Then my question, I guess is, is that with reference to the
restaurant within the building?
�..r Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Bromberg: Then you have a continuation of the restaurant outside the
building?
Mr. Shane: The restaurant outside the building is a separate distinct use
from this Incredible Universe.
Mr. Bromberg: According to what I read in the Detroit Free Press in the past
two days, the City Council of the City of Livonia is questioning
the validity of more restaurants within the City and the whole
question of restaurants is now being raised and reviewed at the
City Council, and I point that out as well. I have a question
also, because I do not understand how in the application form, it
can say that since the subject area includes the site of the
proposed Champps Americana Restaurant, we presume that the
Champps petition will be withdrawn. What does that mean? Who
presumes? Is it being withdrawn? Is it not being withdrawn?
Are we dealing with two restaurants, three restaurants? We have
no idea do we? We are not being told that.
Mr. Engebretson: I think logic answers the question Mr. Bromberg because this
proposal consumes the property that Champps was to be located on
so logic would conclude that Champps will be withdrawn.
14046
Mr. Bromberg: But what they are saying here is that they are not withdrawn.
Mr. Johnson: It has been withdrawn and Lone Star Steakhouse is fully approved.
'*ar` Mr. Bromberg: I point out from page five of the 10K filed on March 31, 1995 by
the Tandy Corporation that it is a corporation in transit. As we
have heard, they are changing their merchandising approach, and,
in fact, in December, and I am now reading from the third
paragraph on page 5 of the 10K form "On December 30, 1994 the
company adopted a business restructuring plan to close or convert
233 stores" and it continues "the stores will be closed during
the first quarter of 1995. Of the 233 stores, 33 sit will be
converted to Radio Shack or Computer City Express Stores." In
all fairness I point out that there is another portion of the
same 10K which indicates they are going forward with this
universal concept, the same kind of concept that you heard
tonight, and apparently it is now about to replace the other, but
the point is the entity is making major changes, and in 1993 in
the next paragraph they closed 110 Tandy name brand stores. I
guess what I am pointing out to you is yes we have a substantial
entity but the substantial entity can change its merchandising
approach, can change its concepts, and can decide, at some point,
that this particular piece of property is not something for which
they are finding a profitable situation and can leave you with a
very difficult situation with a 184,000 square foot building
located in the middle of what should have been an office park.
It is for all of these reasons, and I am not going to belabor
this for you, you have been listening for a long time, that we
`.w oppose the approval tonight of the application for the use
waiver. We will indicate to you that we will definitely and
without question be continuing our litigation, and as I said all
litigation is uncertain and the outcome is never sure. We
believe we have a legitimate basis for proceeding and a sound
basis for doing so.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bromberg, I can't really address each point that you raised
but I would like to clarify one that dealt with the number of
parking places. I can understand how you could be confused. The
confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that the staff in
calculating the parking requirements of any building, this
building or any other, excludes large areas such as warehouse and
such frum the parking calculation. If you would be interested in
specific details as to how those calculations were arrived at, if
you would call Mr. Shane tomorrow I am certain he would be glad
to explain it to you.
Mr. Bromberg: I believe that I am under prohibition from your counsel, Cathy
White, not to speak to people in your Planning Department, and
that applies to the attorneys in my office. I would not want to
violate that.
Mr. Engehretson: Well then perhaps you could ask Mrs. White to make that inquiry
on your behalf.
14047
Mr. Bromberg: I am sure we can do it that way.
Mr. Engebretson: That information is a matter of public information. If that
doesn't work, I suggest you call the Mayor's office.
Mr. Bromberg: I will talk to Cathy White. It is not a problem from that
standpoint. I wanted to make it clear to you that it isn't
ethical for me to speak to someone else's client directly.
Mr. Engebretson: I was not aware of that. I am not an attorney so I am at
somewhat of a disadvantage here but that particular point was one
that stood out as having the possibility of some clarification
here tonight, albeit it not absolutely complete.
Mr. Bromberg: There is one other point I should make, I guess. Looking at the
Plan I have, while it is true there is a 100 foot setback from
the northern property line, evidently it should be clear there is
really only a 30 foot setback because beyond the 30 feet you have
parking, so it isn't a 100 foot buffer strip between any
development on this property and the property to the north that
we are dealing with. There is only a 30 foot strip.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you inquire what phase the litigation is in?
Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if that is appropriate but is it scheduled for trial
or is that an inappropriate question Mr. Bromberg?
Mr. Bromberg: The litigation is at what I would consider the initial stages.
ti.. All pleadings are not completed. There are motions pending. The
usual kinds of motions, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion
to Dismiss, these are standard types of motions. I would suggest
it will take a matter of some weeks before there is even a
clarification as to how the litigation will be proceeding. I
answered your question the best way I can.
Mr. Engebretson: Yes I think you have. Finally, I would like to add it is my
understanding that our mission here tonight is to proceed on the
basis that the property is zoned C-2, and all the risks you
mentioned I am sure are very real but that is between you and
others. I believe that the Planning Commission has been charged
with determining whether or not this waiver use is appropriate
for the C-2 zoning that we believe to be in place.
Mr. Bromberg: That is why I directed my remarks to the standards under which
you should be operating. That is why I directed myself to that
portion of Section 19 of the ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and while you were reading those particular issues,
I can show you in my book I have highlighted exactly those same
issues, things that pertain to a lot of these issues, not
necessarily this one. The interesting thing though is there is a
lot of room for interpretation as to what those particular
14048
standards are and how they are measured and while I don't want to
indicate to you at this time how I interpret them, I think you
would agree that they do leave some room for interpretation. The
'... Planning Commission a year ago did indeed unanimously recommend
against that zoning change, but as far as we know the zoning has
occurred. We appreciate the comments you made on it.
Denise McHenry, 38149 Vista, Villas Condos: This is my first appearance in front
of the Planning Commission. I apologize in advance if I do not
follow proper protocol and please excuse me if I am nervous. I
just want to say one thing before I begin my concerns. Mr.
Johnson touched on residents' resistance to the Builders Square
project. Because I was active in that resistance, along with my
neighbors, many of them are here tonight, I wish to restate the
reasons for the strong resistance to the Commission. The many
homeowners associations involved were consistent in their
feelings. We did not then, and we still do not feel, that a
110,000 square foot commercial building at that time was
compatible with Victor Parkway and the overall image of Livonia
and the golden corridor. We are now faced with a proposal for a
184,000 square foot structure. Our feelings have not changed.
We still feel this usage is not compatible with the golden
corridor property. There are perhaps other areas for this
facility not Victor Parkway.
Now, if I may, share with you questions I would like answered or
studied further, if possible.
I just wonder why do we want to give away such a prime piece of
property, such a prime area, such a prime piece of land?
Number two, who is the business marketing to? We have heard from
some of the experts. Who are they marketing to from this
facility? What geographic area? What population would be drawn
to this particular property?
We heard the property opens at eleven in the morning. I did not
hear what time the property closes. Does it close at midnight
because it is opening later? I did not hear that answer.
We are concerned about delivery trucks. You indicated that they
would be limited to the Seven Mile Road entrance to the property.
We are still concerned. Victor Parkway is not situated for C-2.
I understand it is already zoned that way but for a structure
like this even if limited to Seven Mile?
Would what be attracted to the rest of the Victor Parkway after
this building is approved and constructed, if it is indeed
approved? What else would want to move in to the rest of that
vacant prime land that is there? We have Greerunead. We have
condominiums. What is wrong with protecting our golden area. It
is precious to us. What is wrong with keeping it for prime
14049
development and not selling out to big commercial big-box
buildings? What does the Economic Development Council say about
the mixed use of land in Livonia? Can we get this opinion for
�a.. the operation of this parcel of land?
I sometimes think when I drive out to Utica and Shelby Downship,
and I am not picking on them, but there is a house, a factory, a
house, a shoe store. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't look
good. Is that what the City of Livonia is going to?
Are you willing to sacrifice other established businesses located
within the City that will surely decay as a result of this
occupancy and this competition. The overall health of City
business and existing tax base must be considered in this
decision. The present infrastructure must be considered and
reviewed. I am not telling you anything, but these are things I
have been thinking about. Why doesn't the Planning Commission
look at the future land use of the entire area?
We have the Greenmead site. A few months ago that was up for
sale. Somebody made a dirt cheap offer and thank goodness that
didn't go through. We have other property being developed. We
have other Newburgh land next to dwellings. Is there a future
plan? Is there any short-term plan? Look at the use of all the
land in our area, all the land that is left.
Can the Planning Commission recommend a town meeting, a public
meeting to allow other residents to participate and maybe
brainstorm? We have an awful lot of energy in our City, very
capable energy. Why can't we pull on that?
May I suggest no more development and no more rezoning until we
look at the mixed zoning that is going on and impacting our
areas. We want to review the land use and the quality of life to
make sure that there is harmony within the City.
It appears that Tandy has raised a number of issues that must be
studied, parking spaces, and all these kinds of things that I
heard tonight. Perhaps this should be put off. Perhaps more
involvement should be studied.
Another thing that was raised earlier, I might raise quickly once
again. What if this facility were not successful. What can come
become of a building 184,000 square feet?
In closing, I respectfully submit that we must cherish our prime
property, our golden corridor. We must cherish its use or its
misuse will determine the future of Livonia. Thank you so much
for your time and patience.
Mr. Engebretson: We will see if we can get an answer relative to the closing time.
Mr. Spain: We will close at 10:00 p.m. except on Sunday it closes at 5:00
p.m. or 6:00 p.m.
14050
Mr. Engebretson: You raised many good issues Mrs. McHenry. I would like to
comment on one or two of them. I don't know if you are aware but
let's assume the property is zoned C-2 for the purposes of this
,` discussion here tonight. We really have to do that. Are you
aware that the reason we are here is because this building
exceeds 30,000 square feet. If this building were 29,950 square
feet, the developer has the right right now, without any City
involvement, other than pulling proper building permits, etc. to
build that building. He can make it a concrete block building
with landscaping that meets the 15% standard but to follow that
logic a step further, I don't know if that property would
accommodate six of those 29,950 square foot buildings, but it
may, and they have that right to do that right now. So the real
question then, is what is best for the community, and this is the
question you have raised, and I want you to know there was a time
ten years ago I was standing at that podium raising many of these
same questions. The issue considering a substantial Lnsiness
with a single use in a large box versus a half a dozen small
boxes, helter-skelter, I don't think a developer would do that to
diminish the value of what they have there, I am just trying to
point out extremes of what could happen. I am not saying it
would, but let's say he decided to put in six very nicely done
brick buildings that were designed by a professional
architectural firm. They could do that right now and you would
have a variety of different kinds of businesses that are eligible
to go into the C-2 zoning district of which there are many that
are much more intense than the use that is being proposed here.
That is a subjective opinion on my part but the zoning ordinance
lists very clearly what the permitted uses are and some of them
would be most inappropriate for this area, but it could happen.
In matters like this, we find that the City sometimes can
exercise substantially more control, or some control. This
particular proposal has had a number of working sessions between
the staff and developer before it came here where some things
that were unsuitable, f um the City's point of view, have been
changed so what you are seeing is the by-product of a cooperative
effort between the City and the developer, and user, to make this
proposal as palatable as possible. It may not be palatable at
all to you or to others, but it is really important that I convey
the thought to you that if this fails, you may get something a
lot worse. I am not saying this is bad, and I am not saying it
is good, but you oppose what is being presented. Coming from
that standpoint if this is bad, what could go in there could be
considerably worse.
Mrs. McHenry: Sir, with all due respect, when I attended the City Council
meeting December 21st when the C-2 zoning was approved, the
developer, Mr. Johnson, presented a plan of three restaurants,
two of which had been locked in, and a 40,000 square foot book
store. The C-2 zoning was approved on the basis of that plan.
Although, again, it got away from the master plan of office, it
was a little more palatable to the residents versus this giant
14051
square building. I understand your point but I think if this
were nixed and the developer came up with six different usage
type buildings, I think there would be some kind of review
committee, I am just guessing. There would be some control over
the look of it?
Mr. Shane: It would require site plan approval.
Mr. Engebretson: We couldn't stop the development though.
Mrs. McHenry: Then why don't we go back and rezone it office. There seems like
there is a need for that.
Mr. Engebretson: Another issue, what we are doing here tonight is the
first step. This is the first step in the process that would
ultimately be determined by the City Council. They are the
ultimate decision makers here. When it leaves here, whether it
is approved or not, it goes on to the City Council, assuming the
developer appeals the decision, and I am sure he would, if it was
denied. Either way, it is going to go to City Council. They
will have another hearing. That would be another opportunity for
you to participate in the process, and as far as a town hall type
of meeting is concerned, these issues unfortunately aren't
determined by referendum. They are determined by interpretation
of the ordinance and the general impact on the community, etc.
So this is the beginning. We can't really hold a town hall
meeting to get a referendum from the citizens but we are glad
that you are here. There will be another hearing by the City
Council. I know several are probably home watching this meeting
tonight, and so you will be able to school yourself, if you care
to, more in what these C-2 uses are and be perhaps even more
prepared than you were tonight, and you did a fine job. Thank
you very much for coming.
Mr. Morrow: Could I respond to one area. I think you were concerned about
the truck traffic. If I followed Mr. Johnson earlier today, he
said this has been reduced to this store from a 750,000 square
foot office building with 2500 parking spaces. He said that was
a reduction of about one-third of the parking places. The
tradeoff there is obviously you don't get the big trucks in the
morning, big trucks in the evening. The traffic that was coming
before was throughout the course of the day. At least in my
experience, and most of my experiences are in an office
environment, that to service a 75,000 office space multi-tenants,
chances are you would have much greater truck traffic servicing
all those various offices than what you are getting here, four or
five trucks a day bringing in merchandise. They also indicated
there would be some deliveries to customers if you require it.
My experience would tell me to service that size office, you
would have a lot more truck traffic during the course of the day
possibly, so perhaps we would have a net gain as far as reducing
the amount of traffic. As the Chairman indicated, we are trying
14052
to find out, it is C-2, is this the best use for it because we
don't know what is coming tomorrow and this is what we are
looking at.
i"'— Mrs. McHenry: Sir, with all due respect, at least with office construction,
office people leave at five o'clock. They mentioned that their
peak periods are in the evening when people are done with their
dinner and they want to spend three hours at an electronic store
so we have a lot of evening traffic generated. I don't know if
that is compatible with that area. When I bought in that
particular area four years, my husband and I we looked at the
master plan. The master plan promised us that was zoned as
high-quality, top-notch, wonderful office space, landscaped, just
the garden park of Livonia, and truthfully we feel it should be.
It still looks like it should be.
Mr. Morrow: I was trying to comment on the flow of traffic. It changes
during the course of the day but it is probably about the same.
My biggest concern was obviously the truck traffic. My view is
it is not as big an impact as I think office would create.
Mrs. McHenry: I appreciate your trying to make me feel better.
Mr. Morrow: I am not trying to make you feel better. I am trying to give you
my thoughts on it.
Mr. LaPine: I take exception to what Mr. Morrow is saying. 750,000 square
foot of office building will not generate as much truck traffic
as this unless that office building is generating a lot of
`�►
commercial business. If it is just an office building, the only
time you have truck traffic is if they are delivering furniture
or printing to a place. I go to the Prudential Center every day,
which is a big, big building, and I see very little truck traffic
coming out of that building and I bet there is over a million
square feet of office space.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. LaPine, I just said in my experience.
Mr. rapine: I am just saying in my experience it is just the opposite.
Bob Gutkowski: I am the General Manager of the Embassy Suites Hotel. My concern
is we have a five-story building north of that site. We have a
one-story building which is in land that is lower than ours and
will drop off lower than ours. We have guests that are facing
that southerly direction in a fully windowed hotel, that will be
looking on top of the rooftop. My assumption is I guess the
rooftop units and the 8 foot parapet is not going to save that
site line from our guests. We purchased that hotel, built that
hotel and given some history on that hotel with full intent and
with good reservations that land would remain zoned as it
originally was. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Now we are
dealing with uses within that C-2 district that City Council
14053
unfortunately passed over your recommendation to deny. The
concern that I have is that there is control zone ordinance
legislature before City Council that will permit City Council to
dictate architectural control for any buildings within that area
be that C-2, be it office, whatever. If this is the best of what
may come in the future, it is my understanding that Council does
have architectural control, and if I am correct.
Mr. Engebretson: You are correct sir and I apologize for stating what I did. The
architectural control dog exist. The uses are another matter.
Mr. Gutkowski: In respect to parking, again I am addressing the history. I
believe that was a parking deck, multiple levels, which I believe
the number was 2200 or 2500 cars, and I think to make a fair
assessment, if you divide the number of decks into cars, you will
get level parking space vs. deck parking. I think that should be
taken into consideration.
Lee Miller, 38128 Vista: I live in the Villas Condos. My concern is the quality
of life that is being affected. It seems like the justification
is built on business reasons for coming in and making things
profitable and having it work, increasing jobs, and those kinds
of things. Those are very admirable and they are good for
Livonia. It is just we don't want them in our backyard because
it greatly affects the quality of our life. The traffic patterns
are an extreme concern. It is not just within the subdivision
but it is the entering in and out of our subdivision. There will
be back ups. Right now traffic is getting pretty heavy at Seven
Mile/Victor Parkway, at Eight Mile/Victor Parkway. That is
\.. certainly going to get a lot worse and we will have trucks that
take longer to get through the intersections and it is just going
to be horrendous. Then if you amplify it by what happens during
peak holiday seasons, I think we will all have to move out for
at least those periods of time because the quality of our life
will be degraded and the tension level will be extremely high.
There will be the issue of noise. I think in spite of their
attempts to make it the best for us possible, the very best they
can do is not going to be good enough for us to continue to enjoy
the life we were looking forward to. Right now it is very common
to see the residents in the evening strolling up and down,
walking, biking, etc. , but they are out enjoying our community.
We have a family of deer that we see every now and then. It is
really nice to have this and it is a part of Livonia that we
treasure. What is going to happen, the bottom line is that there
is going to be a lot of traffic in the evenings and weekends that
we do not have to contend with now. There is no traffic
essentially except the people in our subdivision going in and out
or the occasional office worker that gets stuck putting in some
overtime. The point is, it is all going to disappear. We will
not have that. We will not be able to stroll up and down because
there will be traffic, and a lot of traffic and large trucks and
it will be too dangerous to do that. This is such a beautiful
14054
section of Livonia . It is a shame to see this disappear too
just because it was justified from an economic standpoint.
Christopher Roosen, 38222 Bristol Avenue: I have one question that wasn't
`o.. answered with regard to the site plan. The 788 spaces, are they
shared with the steakhouse?
Mr. Shane: They have their own parking.
Mr. Roosen: At the beginning of the presentation there was mention of a
deficiency in the setback. I am not sure I heard that addressed.
Mr. Engebretson: What that is sir, that area of of the building that borders
Victor Parkway is required to have 100 foot setback. If I
remember correctly, there is approximately 70 foot setback so
they will seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals who has
the authority to grant such relief.
Mr. Roosen: I wanted to second what was said by the previous two speakers.
One thing that really struck me was the statement the gentleman
made that this was like a mall under one roof. That really
struck me. I think we have enough malls in Livonia right now. I
would like to see them work with you and find a way to redevelop
some other property rather than this one.
Herbert Gaschler, 38115 Vista: I built the house specially because it faces
Greenuead. I can come home at five o'clock from my job all day
and I can have a cup of coffee on my porch in quiet. Did you
ever hear diesel trucks go by. I know what it sounds like. I
`w worked for Ford Motor for 37 years. I lived 22 years in Livonia.
I don't know what the actual square footage is of this
development but there are 42 units here and we all spent
approximately a quarter of a million dollars for our condos. I
think that is a real nice prime piece of property in Livonia when
you can put ten million dollars in that little piece of land.
Now you want to take this big piece of land and put that store
there. I was impressed with the light poles. I think they are
the same light poles we have on the freeway. It lights it up
like a satellite. It is called a satellite. Nobody mentioned
what the lighting is going to be on this building. It may be
flashing lights or stars. Nobody mentioned it. We have a nice
building down there that nobody likes, including the Mayor. The
Mayor was against it. How did it happen. We were fighting here.
I don't know haw many meetings I attended here on the C-2. It is
like a school millage, bring it up, bring it up. It is going to
go through. Why don't people look where the real money is coming
from? We almost had Builders Square. Kmart was in financial
trouble before they even started talking. Why didn't we get
another 60-day cooling off period like he wanted last time so we
can rethink the whole situation. Don't jump in all those big
deals, big money. I wouldn't want to stay at Embassy Suites if I
had to look out at the air conditions units. It would be a stab
14055
in the back for Embassy Suites if you look out any of those
stories to look out at that space.
Larry Kitchens, 38136 Vista: I own a condo in the Villas. I don't have any
Now prepared statements. I just have a couple of questions. One is
the gentleman here mentioned that this Commission had indicated
that the road was not compatible for a Builders Square type of
facility. Is that true?
Mr. Engebretson: I think the gentleman probably read the resolution as it is.
Mr. Kitchens: You still agree with that I presume?
Mr. Engebretson: I believe in agreeing that he represented it fairly.
Mr. Kitchens: I understand it is already C-2 and it is out of your hands. I am
just trying to understand chronologically some events that
occurred. I also attended many of the meetings and I sat back
and tried to understand Mr. Johnson's position. I tried to
appreciate the business factor and what he was up against in
trying to accommodate a return on his assets. I also heard him
make a somewhat impassioned statement at the end. He said I
really did not recognize the intent of the community and the
outcry against this. I will rescind my offer, is what he said,
and I left the meeting thinking we had a Borders Bookstore and
some restaurants. People were grumbling a little about that but
in general they felt they won a compromise. Now all of a sudden
I find out for all the reasons that Mr. Johnson was saying that
he was conceding and he understood the outcry of the community,
now he is doing the same thing again, and I would encourage you
for any other zoning request on this man's part, you really have
to consider the veracity of this individual because I really
believe there was a hidden agenda there and I believe his hidden
agenda was with certain members of the City government, and I
consider myself a reasonable man. I am not on the fringe element
of anything, and I am quite disturbed and a little disgusted
about it.
Mr. Johnson: One of the things we failed to present earlier was what has taken
place in the last year with respect to office property in the
development. 80% of the park is still zoned office and in place
for office. Hillman Properties have purchased the property on
the east side of the parkway. This took place consistent with
the zoning. They do support the zoning. They have purchased the
vacant land. They have now purchased 100% interest in this
office building and hold probably the most significant investment
in here other than myself. They also bought the vacant land on
this site, agreed in the zoning of this to C-2 to downsize the
office zoning and then purchased this for office development and
have completely purchased that for cash, and also this site too.
It was downsized in height and that was also purchased. This
parcel has continued to be owned us. In addition to that, for
14056
further new information, we have paid over the past ten years two
million dollars in property taxes. We have also, with respect to
the Embassy Suites position, I would like to point out for the
record that if you put parking decks in there, they would be
`` viewing down on parking decks or if you would put a one-two or
three story office building, they would be viewing down at the
rooftop units. I would also like to file for Embassy Suites'
position, this is filed by Deborah Height, Director of Marketing,
Embassy Suites Hotel, Williamsburgh, Virginia. "We set directly
behind a Kmart store located in the Kingsgate Shopping Center.
Guests can walk out our back door across a small field and enter
Kmart's parking lot. Guests love the convenience of having Kmart
so close. They don't have to rely on transportation to get
there. We are the closest hotel in the area to Kmart".
Mr. Bromberg: May I object for the record. This is exactly and precisely what
we heard before where he contested that before. He is redoing
the prior hearing.
Mr. Johnson: We would like to say that we feel strongly that Incredible
Universe is compatible. It is unique to Livonia, and it is an
asset to Livonia and we would urge you to approve it tonight.
There was no one else present wishing to e heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#4-57-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
``" City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 by the City Planning
Commission on Petition 95-3-2-13 by Victor Corporate Park Land
Investment Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a
retail building in excess of 30,000 square feet to be located on the
west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-3-2-13 be
approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals for deficient parking space sizes, deficient number of
parking spaces and a deficient building setback and to the following
additional conditions:
1) That the site plan marked SP-9V dated 4-21-95 prepared by Hodges
& Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the building elevations sheet A4.0 dated 4-21-95 prepared by
Hodges & Associates, Architects, which, except for the wall signs
depicted thereon, is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That a fully developed landscape plan which shall include a
complete underground irrigation system shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval within 30 days of the date of
this resolution.
14057
4) That this resolution shall not be construed as an approval for an
internal restaurant with more than 30 customer seats.
5) That all roof-top mechanical units which can be seen by the
Say public shall be screened or painted a color to match the
building.
6) That all customer parking spaces shall be double striped.
7) That the overhead doors shall be closed at all times;
8) That truck deliveries shall be restricted to 9:00 a.m. or later;
9) That all truck traffic will be restricted to enter and exit only
from Seven Mile Road.
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.
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
`'ft► accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine: I want to speak in opposition to the proposal. I don't think
that this is compatible to the area. I don't think it is a good
thing for Livonia. It seems to me that what we are trying to do
here, everyone seems to be panicking. We have some nice prime
land there. For some reason or other we have to put something on
that land. In my opinion, we can hold out here. I think the
office buildings are going to come back, and that we can get what
we were originally told we were going to get here five or six
years ago. I attended the meeting. I was just overwhelmed by
what Mr. Johnson proposed there. I think it was a good proposal.
I think that proposal would have gone forward. I understand the
position Mr. Johnson is in. He awns a large parcel of land. He
is paying large taxes on that land. Those are the chances you
take when you buy big parcels and you hold onto it and hope some
day you are going to be able to get it developed the way you want
it. I understand he has the zoning. Something has to go in there
in the C-2. As I stated before, the thing that went wrong, this
property never, never should have been rezoned to C-2. It was
originally meant to be office park. For us now to come
14058
along and allow this type of development, I can foresee in the
future, it may not happen in my lifetime, I may be dead and
buried before it happens, but if this building goes under, this
City is going to be stuck with an 184,000 square foot building
that, in my opinion, is not marketable, with that large size.
Therefore, for my personal belief I think it is wrong. The
zoning is spot zoning in my opinion. I cannot vote for this
proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to give recognition again to the fact that this property
is zoned C-2. This is a permitted use.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: rapine, Piercecchi
ABSENT: McCann
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. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: 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 Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the
Inspection Department stating the proposed outdoor patio dining area
is located in a C-2 zoned district and is in compliance with all
district regulations. In this particular location, some
consideration should be given to pedestrian traffic in the immediate
vicinity of the restaurant.
Mr. Engehretson: Is the petitioner here?
The petitioner was not present.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-4-2-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-58-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-4-2-14 by
14059
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 determine
to table Petition 95-4-2-14 until date uncertain.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-6-2
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 15.03 of the ML district removing a prohibition of general
and professional offices as permitted uscs and Section 14.02 of the
RE district to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts.
Mr. Engebretson: Any comments from the staff?
Mr. Shane: What this particular item refers to is a change in the language
amendment to the RE district, which is the Research Engineering
district, and also to the ML district. 'Ib the RE district at
present time general offices and professional offices are
permitted uses but it does not qualify them in any way. What
this particular amendment would do would be to qualify it by the
statement that this does not include all the waiver uses in
office district, which include hospitals, museums, surgical
'fo"' clinics, and that type of thing, and it also goes on to specify
that surgical and non-surgical out-patient clinics would not be
permitted uses. In the ML district since all the uses now
permitted in Research Engineering are permitted now in ML, that
same prohibition will occur in the ML district. That is the
essence of it.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner, we will go to the audience.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-6-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-59-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-3-6-2 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 15.03 of the ML district removing a prohibition of general
and professional offices as permitted uses and Section 14.02 of the
RE district to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-3-6-2 be approved for the following reasons:
14060
1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide
for uses in the RE and ML zoning districts which are more
compatible with research and industrial type uses normally found
`f.. in those districts.
2) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide
the City with more control over the location and nature of office
type uses normally not found in industrial zoning districts.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-6-3
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new
smaller satellite dishes from site plan approval.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane would you care to comment on this proposal?
Mr. Shane: What this essentially is, currently in residential districts in
particular, satellite dish antennas are not permitted unless
there is a site plan approved. In the advent of the smaller
dishes, particularly those that are three feet in diameter or
less, they do not have the same impact as the larger ones, so
what this amendment would do is exempt those smaller dishes from
site plan approval and make them automatically permitted.
Mr. Engebretson: I am wondering why have we selected three feet instead of two
feet, since the popular new dish technology is 18 inches?
Mr. Shane: We thought that three feet was a reasonable place to cut it off.
If they are smaller than that obviously they will be covered so
this would be the maximum size.
Mr. Engebretson: They will be covered but.
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that being changed.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it makes a difference that an 18 inch dish can be hidden
versus one that is that size.
Mr. Shane: Two feet would be more restrictive so there is no problem
changing it.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to propose that, assuming someone makes an approving
recommendation, that it be done on the basis of two feet.
14061
Mr. Morrow: A question to the staff. In your opinion, do you think this will
strengthen our position when it comes to larger dishes as it
relates to aesthetics? If they fit the prescribed size they can
`o . go without our approval and it is only those cases that we may
deny where they are intrusive on their neighbors and to the City?
Mr. Shane: I think it strengthens our position from a law point of view as
well because we can say that without restriction we do allow two
foot or less antennas so they do have a choice. If they want the
bigger one, then they stand to go through the process, but if
they were satisfied with the smaller one, they could get a permit
without any further approval.
Mr. LaPine: Do they still have to get a building permit?
Mr. Shane: Yes they do.
Mr. LaPine: When they get the building permit, are they going to be given the
rules? As I understand it I don't have to worry about seeing one
of these in the front yard, side yard?
Mr. Shane: This does not allow them in the front yard in any case. The only
time they would have to get a building permit, however, is if
there had to be an engineering study to attach it to the roof or
if it had to be on a base on the ground.
Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me they don't have to get a building permit?
Mr. Shane: I doubt it.
Saw
Mr. TaPine: What guarantee do I have that someone is not going to stick it in
their front yard? If a person doesn't know where he is allowed
to put it, he is going to put it where he thinks it is best and
where he wants to put it.
Mr. Shane: I am not really sure whether it would require a building permit
or not to be honest with you.
Mr. TaPine: I would like to find out how they are going to control it because
I can see anyone buying one of these dishes and they don't know
where to put it. It is like people that buy a swimming pool.
They don't know the ordinance, but they have to be ten feet away
from the side yard, they have to have a fence, etc. I think the
same thing could happen to us here if we don't have some kind of
control. At least if they are required to get a building permit,
they can be issued a set of rules and regulations as to where
they are allowed to put these dishes. If they are not, then I
can't vote for this as it stands tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine. I think he raises an excellent
point and I think when we are finished with the public hcaring
14062
here tonight that we should possible table this item for further
review by the law department to deal with that question and to
also consult with the building department to have their input as
'tow to the validity of requiring a building permit for these dishes
and haw they might enforce these things.
Mr. Morrow: The only thing, I have no problem studying it further, but we
begin to drift to preceding these dishes were television antennas
and we never got involved where people put their television
antenna whether it was on their chimney or I suppose if they
wanted to put it in the middle of their backyard, they could put
it in the middle of their backyard. I think the important thing
here is if it is a three to four foot dish sticking in the middle
of their backyard, is it going to impact their neighbor or impact
their pocketbook because some day the same people might want to
have an antenna. I am coming from the standpoint, I guess there
is a point in time where do we draw a line, how much is it going
to impact their neighbor, because without aesthetics impacting
their neighbor, we really don't have any reason to deny putting
that in. I don't have any problem studying it further but those
are my thoughts.
Mr. Piercecchi: I believe this should be tabled. In the study meeting we talked
about front yards and terminology and I asked if it was defined
in our dictionary and it was not defined and I think the point is
well taken. If we are going to have an ordinance, it should have
some explanation behind it. I agree with Mr. Shane that having
one on three foot, would force people to come for six foot.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-6-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-60-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-3-6-3 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new
smaller satellite dishes from site plan approval, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-3-6-3 until
date uncertain.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
14063
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-10
by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio
dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east
side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last regular meeting because the
petitioner was not present.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-61-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver
use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant
(Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 24, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Trudy Boston: I am the Licensing Representative for General Mills Restaurant,
the parent corporation for the Olive Garden Restaurant. I want
to apologize for our failure to appear last month. We had some
internal changes and the ball was dropped and I do apologize. I
am here on behalf of the Olive Garden for approval for the waiver
use for the existing patio area for additional outdoor dining. I
will limit my comments to any questions you may have.
Mr. LaPine: The area you are going to use for the outside, which is there
already, is that going to be controlled as far as who sits there
by your main dining room?
Ms. Boston: Yes it is.
Mr. TaPine: Because you abut some residents not too far f vm there, what are
the hours that would be open? Would it be open at night?
Ms. Boston: I would imagine our regular operating hours which would be 11:00
a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and then 11:00
a.m. until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. LaPine: How many months a year would that be operating?
Ms. Boston: Weather permitting.
Mr. LaPine: After September when it gets cold, you won't be using it any
more?
Ms. Boston: They only intend to use it for seasonal purposes, warm weather.
Mr. LaPine: How many seats will that hold out there?
14064
Mr. LaPine: Alcohol beverages will be served out there too?
Ms. Boston: Yes, in fact concurrent with this plan we also have an
application in before the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and
we are about two-thirds of the way through that process. We have
received tentative verbal approval from the Livonia Police
Department and the local LCC enforcement officer.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have 40 seats?
Ms. Boston: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Will that be five tables of eight, or what?
Ms. Boston: From what I have been told there will be ten four-seat tables
with umbrellas.
Mr. Alanskas: Will they be circular tables?
Ms. Boston: I don't think that has been determined at this time.
Mr. Piercecchi: The prepared resolution that the department put together for us
states that all the dumpsters be screened. I would also like to
comment on the current enclosure on the east side of the
building. I think it had gaps in it. I think it needs to be
looked at very closely and my approval also would be contingent
on road repairs. That east drive is getting pretty beat up and
if we let that continue on, we could have a bad eyesore there for
`r.. you and the community. Can you give me assurance that road will
be repaired?
Ms. Boston: No I don't have that authority. I will certainly pass the word
on.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can we put that in as a condition?
Mr. Engebretson: I guess we can put in any kind of condition. If I may Dan, I
bought a new car about a year and a half ago and I went dawn
there on another matter on that property on a rainy evening and I
fell into about an 8 to 10 inch hole that knocked the front end
out of alignment, and when Mr. LaPine and I went over there
within the past few weeks, I almost did it again with another new
car, so I really can find similar support for your recommendation
and I appreciate your bringing it up. I think that you would be
doing your customers a service by dealing with this issue.
Mr. Morrow: I went out there on a day when it wasn't raining but the water
was in the chuckholes and my wash job was spoiled because the car
passing by splashed on me.
14065
Mr. LaPine: Does the Olive Garden own that property or do they lease it from
Mr. Guastello?
Ms. Boston: I understand they own the property.
Mr. LaPine: So they would be responsible for the maintenance of that
driveway?
Ms. Boston: I don't know whether or not that is ours or a common area.
Mr. LaPine: I would think Olive Garden is probably responsible for the
parking lot that they own but the road in and out is probably
Guastello's because that goes all the way back to the office
park. I have no objection if we can get it repaired.
Mr. Morrow: The one I was referring to is adjacent to your outdoor dining
area. It is your service road leading up to your dumpster and
your dock and it runs right alongside the building on the east
side.
Mr. Engebretson: Apparently you have one on site and one that may be off site. I
think as a good corporate citizen if you could ask them to bring
a full yard of asphalt and fix them both.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-62-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use
approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive
Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 95-2-2-10 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the modified Site Plan marked Sheet R-1 dated 2-22-95
prepared by Philip Kemery, Architect, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the maximum number of customer seats to be located in the
patio area is 40.
3) That this approval for additional seats is applicable to the
outdoor patio area only and shall not be construed as to permit
additional seating inside the building.
4) That all trash containers (dumpsters) shall be screened from
public view by means of masonry walls with gates.
5) That the appropriate road repairs be made to parking lot and
driveways.
14066
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
`.., general waiver use standards and requirements a 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.
3) That the increased seating requested is outdoor seating and
therefore seasonal in nature and, consequently, will have a
minimal effect on the normal operation of the restaurant and
adjacent uses 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. Engebretson: Just so there is no misunderstanding, we want you to leave here
tonight with a crystal clear awareness of one of the points Mr.
Piercecchi put in his resolution that the additional seating
being granted for the outdoor patio area, in no way increases any
seating capacity inside that restaurant in the off season.
Ms. Boston: We understand that.
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 95-2-6-1
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention
facilities for adults and children.
Mr. Engebretson: This also was a tabled item so we need to remove it from the
table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-66-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to
determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and
children be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a very complex zoning ordinance change that deals with
the matter of detention facilities as Mr. Morrow indicated, and
we had a public hearing on this several weeks ago and we reviewed
it in great detail. At that time there were recommendations from
14067
the public and from the Commission to make several changes and we
tabled the item in order to give the law department an
opportunity to review those changes that were proposed to make
'yw sure we didn't dilute the ordinance by making it so restrictive
that we had an ordinance that can be defeated in a court
situation if someone would choose to challenge it. The changes
that were made deal with several items that whereas the original
proposal had a minimum lot size of 20 acres required, we changed
that to 25 acres. We changed the language to require that there
be experienced professional supervision in sufficient numbers to
insure the security of the institution and finally we changed the
separation from school or park from 400 feet to 500 feet. All
other aspects of the ordinance that was presented several weeks
ago are intact and this then becomes the final product.
Mr. Piercecchi: The last resolution I made regarding the road repairs, I had
difficulty finding the proper adjective to make sure the road
repairs are done adequately, and I notice in this particular
ordinance it uses the terms "sufficient" supervision. What do we
really mean by sufficient?
Mr. Shane: Since we do not know the exact operation of any of these
facilities to where we can put a number and say you need five or
ten supervisors, what it really says is you need to provide the
supervision that is going to do the job. We thought the
adjective "sufficient" was as detailed as we could make it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would it be more beneficial Mr. Shane if we had it "sufficient
Nowsupervision as determined by the Chief of Police or as determined
by the Planning Department, as some particular body"?
Mr. EngPhretson: I think that is all implied here. As you know, this ordinance
would require any such user to file a waiver use and to go
through the public hearing process at which time we would seek
the input from the various City departments including the Fire
Department, Police Department, etc. , and I think the adjective
used gives the City considerable latitude in making any
determination based upon the kind of use that is being proposed.
I think you would agree there is no standard.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize each different operation would require different
numbers. I am just wondering if for clarity purposes it was
directed, but inasmuch as your comments state it has to come
through here and then the Police, Fire, etc. come in and at that
particular time we would get a determination on haw much
supervision would be required?
Mr. Engebretson: Absolutely, based on the testimony at the public hearing. We
would form some of our own opinions, I am sure, and could seek
outside professional opinions as well.
Mr. Piercecchi: Under those circumstances Mr. Chairman I certainly approve the
language.
14068
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-64-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to
determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and
children, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 95-2-6-1 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the Zoning Ordinance currently does not contain adequate
language to regulate the several uses covered by the proposed
language amendment.
2) That the proposed language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will
provide the City with the tools necessary to regulate the several
uses which are the subject of the amendment.
3) That the proposed language amendment will serve to further
protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
Livonia.
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.
fir. Mr. Engehretson, 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 701st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March
28, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#4-65-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 701st Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 1995 are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Marrow
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
14069
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-8-6
by Anthony Semaan requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal
to construct an office building on property located at 15530
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the Past side of Middlebelt Road between Five
Mile and Roycroft. You have an eye care center to the north and
a car wash to the south. They are proposing to construct a 2200
square foot building, which would be utilized as a lawyers'
office. Parking on site, they are required to have nine spaces.
The site plan shows they have ten so they meet the parking
requirement. The landscaping requirement is 15%. The site plan
shows 33% so they meet the landscaping. The rear yard setback is
required to be 20 feet from a residential area. They only show
15 so prior to coming before the Planning Commission they needed
a variance from the Zoning Board. They were granted a variance
for the 15 feet so they meet the setback requirements. The
building will be constructed out of brick and will have an
asphalt shingle roof.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner has waited patiently and now we will ask him if he
has anything to add.
Tom Kennedy: I am the builder. I think this is pretty cut and dry. We want
to construct a one-story building, fully brick. I think it is
going to enhance the neighborhood. There was a 60-year old
`r.. house there that was torn down a few weeks ago. If there are any
questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property sir?
Mr. Kennedy: No, I represent a family law practice.
Mr. Alanskas: What kind of roof will this have sir? Will it be a pitch roof?
Mr. Kennedy: It will be a 6/12 pitch.
Mr. Alanskas: Will there be any air conditioning units on the roof?
Mr. Kennedy: No, nothing on the roof.
Mr. Engebretson: It appears that the setback of that property is approximately the
same as the car wash. Am I reading that correctly?
Mr. Kennedy: It is exactly the same as the eye doctor. I am not sure about
the other building. Do you mean the rear setbacks?
Mr. Engebretson: No the front yard.
Mr. Kennedy: It is close.
14070
Mr. Engebretson: Isn't that the car wash, the other building on the site plan?
Mr. Kennedy: It is two feet further back than the eye doctor.
Mr. Engebretson: We could say it conforms with the general vicinity as far as
setbacks are concerned?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: We hashed this out pretty thoroughly at the study session. We
know you are planning on putting a quality building here.
Apparently the law practice which will occupy the building will
be an owner/user so it is not a speculative building. This is
something that will be occupied the first day it is ready to go.
Mr. Kennedy: They are very anxious to get it done.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-66-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 95-3-8-6 by Anthony Semaan requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with
a proposal to construct an office building on property located at
15530 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as C-1 dated 12/1/94, as revised, by
�.. Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double
striped;
3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as C-1 dated 2/7/95 by
Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
4) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-3 dated 12/1/94, as
revised, by Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
14071
#4-67-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
`, concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 95-3-8-6 by Anthony Semaan requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
property located at 15530 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 13.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan in
connection with Petition 94-12-2-36, which received Planning
Commission approval to expand and increase the seating capacity of an
existing restaurant located at 30471 Plymouth Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This is the Archie's Restaurant that was just approved for waiver
use approval. Part of that condition of the waiver use approval
was that they submit a landscape plan within 30 days to the
Planning Commission for approval. This is the plan they
submitted. They show on the new landscape plan a 3-foot high berm
will be along the rear protective wall to the rear of the
property, and on top of that berm will be 19 white pine trees,
which will be about 5 to 6 feet in height. They also show
landscape islands in the parking lot where the petitioner wanted
to save some existing trccz. The existing trees will be left
Nifty
in this landscape area. Also some law spreading vegetation will
be planted in the island to better landscape it. They also show
some landscaping in front of the restaurant to help buffer it
from Plymouth Road.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe that we excused this petitioner tonight from coming
because he made his presentation at the study meeting. He meets
all the requirements and this particular issue is in the process
of catching up to the underlying proposal to expand the
restaurant. This is Archie's and the City Council has this in
committee right now waiting for this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-68-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Landscape Plan in connection with Petition
94-12-2-36, which received Planning Commission approval to expand and
increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant (Archie's)
located at 30471 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Landscape Plan received by the Planning Commission on
March 17, 1995 by Archie's Restaurant, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
14072
2) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials thereafter shall be
permanently maintained in a healthy and green condition.
Mr. Engebretson, 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 Randall Signs, on behalf of Target, requesting
approval for a ground sign for the store located at 20100 Haggerty
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the Target store that is located on Haggerty Road between
I-275 and Haggerty. It also has Home Quarters on the property
and the Horizon Health Center. They are proposing a 27 square
foot ground sign to be located out towards Haggerty Road on the
north drive in from Haggerty Road. This site is only allowed one
ground sign at 30 square feet. There is already an existing Home
Quarters ground sign and the existing ground sign for Horizon
Health Center so this signage is in excess of what they are
allowed. Because of that, they had to go to the Zoning Board
prior to coming to the Planning Commission for a variance for
excessive signage. They were granted a variance for excessive
signage for the exact sign they are proposing now so by virtue of
the variance, it is a conforming sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: This granting through the Zoning Board of Appeals, were they
aware it was 71 square feet over?
'4111. Mr. Miller: Yes they were aware of what is on there.
Mr. Engebretson: Because this has become a conforming sign because of the Zoning
Board action, we also excused this petition from appearing
tonight, so we will need a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-69-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Randall Signs, on
behalf of Target, requesting approval for a ground sign for the store
located at 20100 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Randall Sign, received by the Planning
Commission on March 24, 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:
14073
1) That the sign shall not exceed 27 sq. ft. in area or 6'4" in
height. The monument portion of the signage will be brick to
match the existing building. The sign is to be erected at a
taw
conforming setback of 10 ft. from Haggerty Road and will be
internally illuminated and on a timer.
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 702nd Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on April 25, 1995 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
r
, __<\' . \ ,
' ( ) \, ( ( \\ k'' ((,---
R. Ice Morrow, Secretary
I
ATTEST: 4. t 761/7/ 11
Ja Engebson, Chairman
jg
N..