HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-12-13 13772
MINUTES OF THE 695th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 13, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 695th 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 30 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William LaPine
C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
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
tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-10-1-22 by Ronald M. Parz requesting to rezone property located
on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal .
We have also received a letter from Roy Zahnleuter who states
he was unable to attend tonight's meeting but would like to
request that his view be made public. His home is located at
29504 Greenland, which is diagonally across Middlebelt from the
property proposed to be rezoned. This has been his residence
since March of 1988. He presently lives immediately adjacent
to another C-1 property and is opposed to having the property
under petition changed to C-2 zoning. His largest concern is
that C-2 zoning includes waiver uses which allow those types of
businesses which, in his opinion, are a detriment to his
`slow
13773
immediate neighborhood and to our community. He specifically
objects to Class C liquor licensed establishments, automobile
repair and gasoline service stations, and used car lots. He
*41w believes that these would result in a devaluation of his
property value as well as that of all neighbors near the
petition. Based upon the high percentage of long term vacancy
at the petition location and elsewhere in the immediate area,
there has been an obvious over-development of commercial
property along this corridor. He does not believe that the
city should allow a relaxation of responsible zoning ordinance
to remedy the poor judgement and speculation of the people who
were responsible for developing this property.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Pat Smith: I am here on behalf of Charles Tangora who is representing the
petitioner, Ron Parz of Concord Plaza. I can't add much to
what was said other than to say he has about 28,000 square feet
leased over there. He has 7,000 to 8,000 square feet that he
has been unable to lease. I know all of you have gone over to
look at it and you have seen where the vacant spaces are. His
problem is he has had the opportunity to lease to three
different people but was unable to do so because of the zoning.
For that reason he is bringing this petition before you. One
of the companies he could have leased to was the GE Service
Department. They are in there with the Parts Department but
the Service Department could have come in had it been zoned
otherwise. There was a laser tag store that wanted to come in
°law and could not, and a print shop that wanted to come in. So he
has brought this before you to request the change from C-1 to
C-2.
Mr. McCann: To the staff, are some of these uses like the service addition
to the parts, is that a possible waiver use in C-1?
Mr. Nagy: No there is a limitation in the C-1 . It is not permitted. In
C-2 they can go up to 50% of floor area for service.
Mr. McCann: But you can't do it as a waiver use in C-1? The print shop
would not be allowed in C-1?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it would not be.
Mr. McCann: Ms. Smith, the petitioner is requesting the entire center be
developed into the C-2 district. Is there a certain portion of
it at the north end that he would be willing to change from C-1
to C-2 or does he need the whole mall?
Ms. Smith: He would like the whole mall . There are various spots that are
open. They are not all at one end of the mall so in order to
give him the optimum ability to lease it, he would like to have
it all changed.
13774
Mr. McCann: I was assuming that he could put the C-2 that would come in, in
spots at the north end and the C-1 in the other area. I am
trying not to create as much C-2. I realize there is some
��.. hardship here.
Mr. LaPine: Ms. Smith, how long has that 8,000 square feet been vacant?
Ms. Smith: I can't answer that for you.
Mr. LaPine: Do you think one of his problems in getting C-1 tenants is
because of the fact there are two parcels to the south that are
C-2 that are full? Apparently he has tenants that are happy.
Could it be he has his square footage too high and he can't
find people in the C-1 classification?
Ms. Smith: I do know he has not been able to find anyone for C-1 and he
has been approached by ones that could fit in if he had the C-2
zoning. I can't speak as to whether or not his square footage
is too high. Again, as you have observed he has the majority
of the property leased. We have unfortunately a lot of vacant
area in the City. This is one of them. Obviously he would
like to see the shopping center as full as it can be and it
could have been had he been able to take these other tenants.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know if anybody has approached him with the C-1 zoning
that could go in there, or is it strictly people with C-2?
Ms. Smith: The recent ones that have approached him have been the C-2.
Mr. LaPine: You wouldn't know how long this has been empty?
Ms. Smith: I can't respond to you as to how long those various storefronts
have been vacant.
Mr. Morrow: The print shop, would that be like Speedy Printing or a full
fledged printing shop?
Ms. Smith: When I had my discussion with him it was my understanding it
would be like a Speedy Printing shop.
Mr. Morrow: Could you tell us more about this laser tag that you mentioned?
Ms. Smith: No I cannot. I asked him about that and I didn't get an answer
other than they make laser tags. I didn't fully understand
what that meant either.
Mr. Morrow: One of the places I am coming from here is obviously when we
see C-2 I think the letter mentioned things like gas stations
and we mention restaurants and things of that nature and I
think they are bona fide C-2 districts. However, with
technology moving on, sometimes these uses aren't quite as
intense as they once were. My dilemma might be more in the
lines of maybe our ordinance needs to be looked at to see what
13775
is appropriate that maybe some of these current day uses such
as Speedy Printing or a company that can put a laser tag to
something might not be too intense and could fall within
vr,,, something that might be a neighborhood type service like Speedy
Printing. My dilemma is increasing the C-2 with all things
that are appropriate in C-2. Mr. McCann was saying perhaps it
might be wise to come in on the basis that if you had a tenant
come in on that basis since we can't condition it. It would
give us a little more insight on what he was trying to
accomplish. Those were just some thoughts I had.
Ms. Smith: I understand that concern. The problem would be when he gets a
tenant that is interested. Very often when they find out he is
going to have to try to take some time to get the proper
zoning, they lose their interest.
Mr. Morrow: I can certainly understand that. It is not the intent of this
Commission to try to make centers less viable but we do have to
operate within the framework of the zoning.
Ms. Smith: I understand that.
Mr. LaPine: The three tenants that you mentioned, are they still out there?
Ms. Smith: They are gone as of this moment, with the possible exception of
the print shop, which would like to expand. That might be
something which would still be viable but the other ones are
gone. GE took their service base out of the City.
L..
Mr. LaPine: My position is I am not really in favor of expanding the C-2 in
that area. I might be willing to bend a little if I knew what
was going in there but because of the fact that C-2 has some
types of businesses that could go in there that I am not happy
with, I would like to know ahead of time what is going in there
before I would even consider C-2 zoning. If he came in with a
specific tenant that was going to take up the whole 8,000 sq.
ft. , I might feel more comfortable, but without actually
knowing what is going in there, I have a tendency to be a
little leery.
Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith, we are glad you are here tonight but we are
wondering why Mr. Parz isn't with you.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Parz was not available tonight, and as you know Mr. Tangora
represents him and Mr. Tangora was out of town so they asked me
to stand in. I made sure I talked to them to bring you as many
answers as I could. I apologize for the fact that he is not
here but he did have a conflict with his schedule. I tried to
anticipate your questions. I don't know how well I did. I am
sorry he is not here. I understand your comments Mr. LaPine
and I talked to Mr. Parz about that and as I said the problem
was that he would find a tenant that was interested but when
they found the time it would take to come before you, they lost
interest. I can fully understand that you would like to know
`�- what is coming in. That is why I tried to let you know the
type of tenants that wanted to come in but this is a dilemma
and I understand your problem.
13776
Mr. Piercecchi : I share Bill LaPine's feeling on having to know exactly what is
going in there. If we open this up to C-2, to name a few of
ti.., the things allowed, automotive accessory stores, dry cleaning
stores, lawn mower sales, service and repair shops, bowling
alleys, tobacco products, bakeries. We open up a large scale
for that residential area and I think it is definitely in
violation of Section 19.06, which is compatibility and things
of that nature.
Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith I am disappointed that Mr. Parz isn't here because I
think it puts all of us at a disadvantage in terms of airing
out all the issues. That certainly is no discredit to you but
with Mr. Parz's absence we don't have the opportunity to get
into the issues that were present when that center was
constructed as a C-1 facility a number of years ago versus what
has changed in the meantime. We don't have the opportunity to
learn how long those vacancies have existed. We don't have an
opportunity to learn what he has done from a marketing point of
view in terms of looking at lease rates; how competitive he may
or may not be with others in the area; what the quality of that
facility is; what type of a relationship do they have between
the landlord and tenants, etc. The real problem that we have
here is that this is not the first time that owners of C-1
zoned shopping centers have several vacancies and they look to
resolve that problem by upgrading the intensity to C-2, which
carries with it the opportunity for a number of businesses,
some of which have been mentioned but there are even others
`,Q. that are even more undesirable than the ones mentioned that are
permitted uses and/or waiver uses in a C-2 district, which
clearly aren't meant for a neighborhood shopping center. This
is not a regional shopping center. This is a neighborhood
shopping center.
Ms. Smith: I understand that there is C-2 immediately south of it but I
realize that north of it there is not. All I can do is bring
it before you and put his concerns before the Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: That is all true, but the other side of that coin is as soon as
that center becomes C-2, guess what happens to the one
immediately north of it. We have talked about that domino
effect and have seen it elsewhere, and I am sure that is part
of Mr. Parz's motivation for coming here and asking for this.
He was recently successful in doing a similar rezoning on
Plymouth Road, which may be considered a regional shopping
area. While the Planning Commission, as I recall , was not
supportive of that, he did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
and got some variances that permitted him to allow some of
these reasonable upgrades in intensity to be tenants at that
facility, but then the City Council , in its wisdom, decided to
turn the shopping center into C-2. If I was Mr. Parz, I would
probably be doing the same thing here, but our problem is not
13777
to concern ourselves with 8,000 square feet of vacancy at this
shopping center. Our concern is for the community as a whole.
While we are not interested in being obstructionist with
businesses in our community, we have a higher responsibility,
in my opinion, to interpret and enforce the ordinances to the
well-being and betterment of the entire community, and it is
questionable as to whether it is appropriate at this point. If
Mr. Parz had been here, not to put you in a terribly
disadvantaged position, maybe he could have convinced us on
some of these things about what has changed and what the logic
is. I am very disappointed that he is not here. I don't know
what the outcome of this will be but I certainly would have
valued his presence, and again, I want to make sure you
understand that I am not looking to take anything away from
your representation here but you are at a distinct
disadvantage.
Ms. Smith: As I said I tried to anticipate the questions as best I could.
His reason for this is the vacancies. I can only tell you what
he stated to me, and I am sorry that he did have a conflict and
was not able to be here.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and just to wrap up my comment, and then we will
go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposal , I would imagine that if this were
successful , a reasonable person would conclude that we, by that
action, had given an unfair business economic advantage to this
property owner to the disadvantage of his neighbor immediately
`guy to the north, across the street, etc. It is my belief that if
this rezoning request is successful , then we have an obligation
to go back and revisit our ordinance as a whole and perhaps
revisit similar issues that have been dealt with in the past,
and very few of those changes have been permitted in
neighborhoods like this. Again, I think it is important that
we recognize that we are not looking at the particular 8,000
square foot hardship that might be at issue here, but we are
looking at a much more global picture. With that in mind we
will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or
against this rezoning request.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-1-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-197-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-10-1-22 by Ronald M. Parz requesting to rezone property located
on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-10-1-22 be denied for the following reasons:
13778
1) That the subject area currently contains sufficient C-2 zoned
lands to serve the needs of the area.
2) That the proposed zoning district would tend to attract uses
which are incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent
residential uses in the area.
3) That the subject site is located so as to provide commercial
services principally to the surrounding neighborhood.
4) That the uses permitted in the existing C-1 zoning district as
well as the several waiver uses are sufficient to serve the
area.
5) That the rezoning of this land to the C-2 zoning classification
will set an undesirable precedent for the area and will
encourage other C-1 property to similarly be rezoned.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat germane to what we are talking
about here but what I alluded to earlier was I would like you
to give some consideration to maybe sometime in the future
asking the staff to look at some of the current day uses that
are not permitted in the C-1, that maybe today with modern
technology may be more appropriate in C-1 rather than having to
go to the C-2 classification. Just to review the C-1 and C-2
classifications to see if we could make it a little bit broader
'tow to include some of this request for C-2 and still hold off the
more intensive uses.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that is a good idea Mr. Morrow, and I don't think we
need to think about that. I think that we could ask for that
task to begin immediately, and to give consideration on the
impact it may have on this facility, as well as others
throughout the community. This is certainly not the first time
we have been through this process. We like to be helpful . We
like to help fill these vacancies. Of course, there is always
the option, John, of coming back piecemeal as we have done.
There is precedent for zoning a portion of a piece of property.
As a matter of fact, I think we have even temporarily zoned
something that way. Of course there is always the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
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
94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango
requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 26 from P to C-3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
�"' zoning of the surrounding area.
13779
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal ,
however, the petitioner should submit plans to Wayne County as
�.. soon as possible inasmuch as Merriman Road pavement will be
widened approximately five feet at this location with the
impending Merriman Road grade separation project. Further, the
above agency may prohibit left turns into the site from
southbound Merriman Road.
We have also received a letter from Julie Al-karawi owner of
the Bai-Lynn liquor store stating she is against the proposed
petition for the following reasons: 1. The proposed location
is located within 500 ft. of an existing SDD establishment.
Two SDD licenses within that close proximity will present a
negative outlook on the City of Livonia. 2. One SDD
establishment on the corner of Merriman & north of Schoolcraft
is adequately servicing the neighborhood and there is no need
for another SDD establishment. 3. Having a shopping center
with a SDD license with easy access to the freeway will make it
a prime target for criminals and also places the surrounding
businesses in jeopardy. 4. To have a SDD establishment right
next to an on ramp of the freeway will create a situation where
drinking and driving will be at an excess.
Mr. Morrow: That particular piece of correspondence doesn't sound like it
is appropriate for what we are here to do tonight, Maybe they
know something we don't know. Aren't we here for a zoning
matter?
Nifty
Mr. Nagy: The petition deals with the question whether or not the C-3
zoning should be expanded the distance that is proposed, which
is 38 feet.
Mr. Morrow: It has nothing to do with an SDD license?
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner has already applied for and asked for a transfer
of license. It was considered by the City Council some two
months ago. Tonight it is strictly a matter of zoning.
Mr. McCann: By changing this additional piece here to C-3, this being the
only area in the City with C-3, liquor license is not a waiver
use. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: So they would not have to come back for that use then. It
would be incidental to the zoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith, you are representing this petitioner?
Pat Smith: I am here on behalf of Mr. Tangora, who is representing Mr.
Shango. This is pretty much explained to you. Apparently
13780
there are three separate tax parcels there and this last one is
zoned P, and this came up actually with a suggestion when the
petitioner appeared before the City Council who indicated it
�.. would probably be a good idea to have that rezoned so it is all
C-3. In Mr. Tangora's file there was a letter from the
Inspection Department dated September 26, 1994 in which they
refer to it as Gagliardi property, and I am sure you are all
aware that this is what we are talking about, where they
indicated that the three parcels should be combined prior to
any redevelopment of this property and it should all be zoned
C-3. I understand that is their opinion. I am just reading
that to you. That is what the petitioner is asking you to do,
to rezone that end of the property so it is all C-3.
Mr. Alanskas: Ms. Smith, with the proposed 38 feet they are proposing a 40'x
180' plaza. Do you know how many units they want to put in
there?
Ms. Smith: I asked him about that and he indicated that there would
probably be five stores in there.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know what they plan putting in those five stores?
Ms. Smith: The current ones that are in place are a party store and a
Coney Island. The others I don't know anything about. I don't
know if they have anything in place now for the others.
Mr. Alanskas: They would not have an SDD license?
Ms. Smith: No, it is not involved in this rezoning petition.
Mr. Piercecchi : When did the SDD and SDM get involved?
Mr. Engebretson: It is not but as Mr. McCann pointed out, it is something that
would be accessible to them without any waivers in this zoning
district as contrasted to a C-2 zoning district, and obviously
the person that wrote that letter is aware of some of the
long-range plans they have.
Ms. Smith: I think that has been before the Council , has it not? It is
public record.
Mr. Nagy: It has been before the Council .
Mr. Morrow: Along that same line, he currently has C-3 so unless he was
specifically going to put it in that particular portion of the
zoning, he already has the waiver.
Mr. McCann: Ms. Smith, my understanding is it is going to be somewhat of a
small strip mall with a liquor store at one end. Is that
pretty much the intent at this point?
13781
Ms. Smith: That is my understanding. The extra area just gives them the
extra depth to make the building more feasible.
'r.• Mr. McCann: Is there any intent to open any kind of Class C establishment,
bar or restaurant?
Ms. Smith: There is none that I am aware of other than what I just told
you, and again Mr. Shango also couldn't be here tonight but I
spoke to him prior to coming to the meeting and he told me the
two that are currently apparently a good possibility.
Mr. McCann: You are putting about 7,220 square feet into this mall .
Approximately how much of that are you aware is going to be
used for the liquor store?
Ms. Smith: I am not aware of what is going to be used. Are you aware Mr.
Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: No, but your architect may be able to comment on it.
Albert Abbo, 18977 W. 10 Mile Road, Southfield: I am the architect designer.
Do you have a specific question?
Mr. McCann: I was wondering how much of the space is going to be used by
the liquor store.
Mr. Abbo: The liquor store is going to be 60'x40' . There will be three
other retail stores and there is going to be either a small
r,,,,.. restaurant or something like that, which will be 60'x40' .
Mr. McCann: They are looking for a restaurant about 60'x40'?
Mr. Abbo: Yes, a Coney Island.
Mr. McCann: You are not looking to bring any Class C liquor license or
entertainment permit in there?
Mr. Abbo: As far as I know, as of now. There could be some seating below
70.
Mr. Alanskas: The liquor store referred to, would that be on the east side of
the building or the west side?
Mr. Abbo: It is going to be in the corner.
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that there is a possibility of a
restaurant with 70 seats?
Mr. Abbo: It is still being debated. Nothing is for sure.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the Coney Island you are referring to?
r.-
13782
Mr. Abbo: Yes the Coney Island.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, under the C-3 do they have to have a waiver use?
`"'. Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, they could go in there
right now without this zoning taking place. They would just
have to build a slightly smaller building. Is that true?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. Engebretson: They have C-3 that covers two of the properties, and they are
looking to have part of that parking rezoned to the east to
allow them to build the size facility they want but having said
that, they could, if they wanted to, without going through this
process basically do what they are talking about doing on a
slightly smaller scale.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: To the architect, do you know is it the plans for the liquor
store to be at the area that is under petition tonight for the
change in zoning or is the liquor store going to be towards the
corner near Merriman?
Mr. Abbo: It is going to be at corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft.
Mr. McCann: Would there be any hardship to having the P zoned to C-2 as
kind of a buffer zone between the C-3 and the M-1 at the other
end? The C-3 right now would give you the liquor store. I am
looking at the other end for C-2. Would that be a problem?
The part under petition tonight is zoned P. Only part of the
building would be in that. The C-2 will give you just about
any use you would want in the City.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Nagy, could you address that? I don't know if that would
be a problem. It just seems it would make sense if it was all
C-3.
Mr. Nagy: What it impacts on is the east 38 feet of your building. The
uses you identified, while they are not permitted by right as
they are within the C-3, they are permitted through the waiver
use process within the C-2. It is another administrative step
you would have to go through but it would not jeopardize your
ability to build the project.
Ms. Smith: I defer to Mr. Nagy on that. He knows more about zoning than I
do. As I look at the map it just seems it would make more
sense to make it all C-3.
Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith I understand your comment but the point in fact is,
13783
as I am sure you are aware, there are some waiver uses
permitted in a C-3 zoning district that include adult
businesses such as adult bookstores, motion picture theaters,
nude body painting, modeling studios, escort service, etc. I
am not saying that any waiver use like that would ever get
through the City but on the other hand, not being an attorney,
I don't know that if it is permitted as a waiver use and the
zoning is in place, what kind of grounds we have to deal with
those kinds of issues, and I must tell you that I think there
is some concern looking down the road that with that zoning in
place we may be vulnerable to some issues that we really would
prefer to avoid.
Ms. Smith: That zoning, if I am understanding correctly, is in place
except for a small piece, and I suppose if you wanted to make
that one small piece C-2, you could. If you feel that gives
you some protection, I suppose there is not a problem doing
that.
Mr. McCann: Under the C-2 it would give you just about everything you need
for what I understand you are asking for at this point, and if
you don't need the extra zoning, I don't know what the
necessity of bringing it up yet is. It does make a bigger
section but if you look across the street we go from a C-2 to a
C-3 with a driveway going through. That was my question just
whether there was a particular need for it to be C-3.
Ms. Smith: There is a need for the extra space. I don't think there is a
need for it to be C-3, but again I will refer to the letter
'''w from the Inspection Department that recommends you make all
three parcels the same zoning, but for this particular project
I don't think it is necessary.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this rezoning request.
Julie Al-karawi : I wrote the letter. It was my concern, after discussion, where
the liquor store would be located. This would concern us. As
most of you know, I am the owner of Bai-Lynn party store, and
if they had a liquor store in the existing area, that would not
even be 400 feet away from another SDD license, which is
established there. This would create a lot of problems plus
anybody walking along Merriman Road would see three SDD
licenses within one mile. This lady said they have a party
store at the corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft, so my concern
is whether they have an SDD existing or they are going to
transfer one or not.
Mr. Engebretson: I think they are in the process of transferring one and it is a
permitted use by right in that zoning district.
Ms. Al-karawi : So on top of the party store there will be three or four stores
next to it, including a Coney Island, so that will create a lot
13784
of traffic in that corner, which already has a lot of traffic.
This will create a lot of problems for the people of Livonia
plus I don't think any resident would like to have a party
44111. store in that corner.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand your point but it is also important that you
understand that they can launch construction as soon as they
draw the proper building permits right now without us doing
anything here. The only thing that we are talking about is
that cross-hatched area. Really all the things that you are
concerned about is really available to them without this taking
place. What we are trying to do is minimize the impact. We
understand this would clearly have some potential impact on
your business and we would understand why you would be
concerned about that.
Ms. Al-karawi : We are concerned for the community too to have an attractive
place especially when it is in front of the freeway. A strip
mall would attract a lot of people, which we don't want in our
City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: I think a strip mall is going to go in there no matter what
happens here tonight, and there will be a party store at the
corner no matter what happens here tonight, and there will
probably be a Coney Island no matter what happens here tonight.
The real question is what happens to that area that is zoned
parking right now? Can they utilize that for some commercial
purpose? That is really what we are dealing with. I am not
looking to trivialize your comments. I understand your points
exactly, but I think it is very important that you understand
that we are not in a position to control those issues that you
raise as a point of concern. We are concerned about those
issues too.
Mr. Piercecchi : Would the denial of the 38 feet stop this project?
Ms. Smith: It may.
Mr. Engebretson: It does not stop them from exercising their rights to build.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-1-23 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi , it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango
requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
13785
Section 26 from P to C-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-1-23 be approved
for the following reasons:
%ow 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor
extension of an existing zoning district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will make the subject property
more usable in conjunction with adjacent lands.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi , Morrow, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, Engebretson, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-198-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango
requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 26 from P to C-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-1-23 be denied for
a change to the C-3 zoning classification for the reasons listed
below, but recommends approval to the C-2 district for the following
reasons:
1) That the change of zoning to the C-2 classification would
provide for more control of the development of subject
property.
2) That the change to C-2 zoning would provide for less intrusive
uses for the subject area.
3) That the C-2 zoning would be more restrictive and better
promote the growth and development of the area and thereby
provide for uses that would tend to be more compatible to the
adjoining and existing uses in the area.
Reasons for denying the proposed change to the C-3 classification:
13786
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents an undesirable
increase in a less restrictive commercial district in the area.
�r.. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is not needed to utilize the
property in the manner proposed.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-10-2-32 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to operate
a full service restaurant within the Laurel Park Place shopping
center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile
Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire
Marshal stating their offices have no objections to this
proposal . We have also received a letter from the Inspection
Department stating the proposed operation of a full service
restaurant at Laurel Park Place will not change or increase the
parking requirements that currently exist, nor will it create
any additional deficiencies at the site. They further state
that the utilization of a Class C Liquor License will require
the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement since there
are currently several established businesses in the Laurel Park
complex that hold Class C licenses that are within 1000 feet of
this proposal .
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Would you give us your name for
the record.
Michael Polsinelli , 26913 Northwestern Highway, Southfield: It has been 8 1/2
years since we presented Laurel Park Place to the City of
Livonia. This evening presents a milestone and that is this is
the last user to occupy space that has not previously been
occupied in the project. After 8 1/2 years of hard work and
cooperation from the City we are glad to bring this to you and
also state that we are embarking on Phase II , which means that
anything which we will present in the future will be re-use.
(He presented the site plan)
The proposed building is at the northeast corner of the
shopping center adjacent to Parisian, which is part of the
13787
Phase II expansion. It represents 5,000 square feet. It is
adjacent to the mall entry and runs to the north to a service
corridor and is only separated by one last space from the
Parisian building.
One of the things I would like to mention that is confusing
about this particular space, you see these large column marks,
which are in the mall area but approximately 40 feet away from
the Parisian building. That represents the area that the
Parisian second story overhangs the mall . When you look at a
mall elevation the Parisian building looks like it is very
large but the last 40 feet of the Parisian building is only
second floor Parisian. The first level is mall . So the mall
level, inclusive of a portion of this tenant's frontage to
Newburgh Road, is part of the Parisian two-story facade.
Specifically this use is unique and different to most
restaurants or Chinese restaurants, which is consistent with
what we have done at Laurel Park, tried to bring something
different to the City and the project. This particular use
will present not only a Chinese buffet, and not typical table
service type of restaurant, but a Mongolian barbecue approach,
which is the food prepared in a large giant wok in front of
people, to which you go, pick up your food, go to a station and
apply your toppings, and make your different dinners.
We have with the expansion of Laurel Park and the addition of
Parisian found that food operations are in need. The existing
operations, existing seating of the project, cannot service the
'"` food demands.
As part of Phase II we have added this particular use. We
thought it would be different. We thought it would be unique.
It would lend itself to the operation, to the type of project
Laurel Park is, as well as draw from other areas besides the
immediate City. Currently, there are only two other operations
that do the barbecue approach, one in Royal Oak, which is a very
small operation, and one in Ann Arbor, which just recently opened.
There is one Chinese buffet that exists in Madison Heights at
Fourteen Mile and Stephenson and on weekends and busy times this
particular location serves 500 to 1000 people, which reflects how
popular that type of approach is and how well it is doing.
The user for this particular space, the operator is a local
operator. His family has been in the business for 11 years.
They currently have a restaurant on Ford Road in Canton. All
three family members reside in Livonia. They own three houses
in Livonia. They are familiar with Livonia, what Livonia is
like, what it likes, what it needs, and are very interested in
having this business in Laurel Park Place mall and the City of
Livonia.
13788
This particular proposal is essentially multi-faceted. It
involves the restaurant waiver use. It involves signage, which
we like to do simultaneous with the restaurant waiver use. It
'tawinvolves a revision in the mall elevation. While we are
talking about it, we might as well talk to the next petition,
which is the liquor license, so we can do it all at one time.
The restaurant will be approximately 180 seats. It will not
have a sit-down bar. It will have a service bar. As I
explained to you before there will be waitresses. It is "full"
service but the nature of the type of service is such that the
only things brought to the tables are the drinks and the
appetizers. The main dishes are assembled or picked up by the
patrons.
As part of the layout there are 98 lineal foot of frontage, to
which we want to add a small exterior entry to facilitate
after-hours operation. Of the 98 lineal foot of frontage there
is approximately 42 square feet of signage proposed. Both of
these items, the signage and the exterior entrance, are
consistent and substantially smaller than that previously
granted to D. Dennison's Restaurant and Max and Irma's
Restaurant. (He presented further elevation plans and signage)
From the standpoint of the signage, although it is a variance
because of the ordinance affecting shopping centers and the
number of signs that currently exist in a shopping center, it
would meet and be a permissible sign if this particular tenant
was free standing or existed in any C-2 district within the
City.
Mr. Morrow: Mike, as it relates to the sign, I noticed the canopy has some
writing on it. Would that be construed as a second sign?
Mr. Polsinelli : I am not sure how the City would interpret the Chinese
lettering on the face of the canopy.
Mr. Nagy: We would call that a decorative element not as actual signage.
Mr. Alanskas: Mike, in regards to the signage, is that the exact color the
letters will be?
Mr. Polsinelli : The red is a darker maroon red.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of the business do you think will be done after
the mall is closed? You said something about 500 to 1000.
Mr. Polsinelli : The 500 to 1000 was representative of a similar operation that
did the buffet. Before we go on, I was remiss in not
introducing the Commission to Mike Yu, who is one of the family
members, and Jack Fenmore, who represents the family in this
venture.
13789
Mr. LaPine: Mike, the area where the restaurant is going to go, there is a
shoe store at the far east end and then you have the area that
is all drywall now. Will they take that whole area or is there
another store going in?
Mr. Polsinelli : There is a accessory store that will be located between the J.
Murphy Shoe Store and the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: That is the area they have been working on?
Mr. Polsinelli : That is what is under construction the accessory store.
Mr. LaPine: The last question is about the outside entrance. It seems to
me when we allowed the Talbots' entrance, I always thought we
were assured there would be no more entrances on the east side
of the building.
Mr. Polsinelli : When we came before you with Talbots, we put a restriction on
ourselves at that point from the northeast entrance to the
Jacobson building, and said at the point of which we developed
the Phase II expansion, now knowing what was there or who we
had at the particular time, we may be back.
Mr. LaPine: So you did not make a commitment that there would not be any
more entrances on the east side of the building?
Mr. Polsinelli : That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: What is your recollection as to what appeared on the original
'tor site plan as far as cuts in the building? I understand you
told someone that there was a cut down there and we don't
remember that.
Mr. Polsinelli : I don't recall telling anybody there was one. The very, very
original site plan had a series of stores that faced Newburgh
Road. When we came back to you for Talbots, at that point my
position was since we had shown those entries, they should have
been approved. I was corrected by saying once we built the
wall solid, that was what would stand. Any changes would have
to come back before this Commission and City Council .
Mr. Engebretson: Are you going to balance off the red doors at Talbots that we
weren't supposed to see from Newburgh Road?
Mr. Polsinelli : These will be red doors.
Mr. Engebretson: You promised we would never see those red doors on Talbots
from Newburgh Road but they are very visible, but this will
balance it.
Mr. Polsinelli : Unless there are specific questions with respect to the
elevation or the signage or the waiver use, my portion of the
presentation is closed. If you have any questions of the
operator, I am sure he will be glad to attend to those.
13790
Mr. Engebretson: Would you let him just give us a brief description of what he
intends to do there, hours of operation, etc.
Mike Yu, 39063 Meeting House, Livonia: This restaurant is a Chinese Mongolian
barbecue. It is Chinese buffet. Right now we have two Chinese
barbecue restaurants. One is in Royal Oak and one is in Ann
Arbor. It is a very good business. Another one just opened at
Fourteen Mile and Stephenson. It is a Chinese buffet doing
very good business. My idea is to join the two kind of
restaurants together. I think that would be a good place for a
restaurant. I have 12 years experience. It will be a family
run style. I think we can do very well at Laurel Park.
Mr. LaPine: How many other locations do you have?
Mr. Yu: One.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a liquor license at the other location?
Mr. Yu: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How much liquor do you sell? How important is that?
Mr. Yu: Almost one million dollars a year but the liquor license is
only about 8%.
Mr. LaPine: Are you proposing to apply for a new liquor license or purchase
one that is in escrow?
Mr. Yu: I will apply for a new liquor license.
Mr. LaPine: What are your hours?
Mr. Yu: 11 :00 a.m. to midnight.
Mr. LaPine: Seven days a week?
Mr. Yu: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: The mall closes at 9:00 p.m. So your outside business will be
from 9:00 p.m. until midnight?
Mr. Yu: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Is there that much business from 9:00 p.m. until midnight?
Mr. Yu: Yes, especially on the weekend.
Mr. LaPine: Being that this is in a shopping center, how much carry-out
business would you suppose the carry-out would be?
Mr. Yu: I don't think we would have too much carry-out at this
restaurant.
13791
Mr. LaPine: When would you think your biggest time of business would be,
during lunch hour or dinner hour?
Mr. Yu: I think both.
*41111' Ms. Blomberg: What is the name of your restaurant that you operate now?
Mr. Yu: New Peking in Garden City.
Mr. LaPine: Mike, is there any way that instead of having the entrance on
the outside that the entry to the mall could be reconstructed
so you could shut off the wall and still have an entrance from
inside the glass doors to this building?
Mr. Polsinelli : Unfortunately, we did make a mistake in building those from the
standpoint of having the vestibules smaller in structure. It
really would be difficult. Inclusive of the fact there are
raised planters on both sides of those entrances, doing that
would be major reconstruction.
Mr. LaPine: At that location we have now two restaurants with liquor
licenses plus we have the hotels. I think there are four at
that location. Do you think that is oversaturing that center
with liquor licenses?
Mr. Polsinelli : I think there are two points I would like to make. The first
is that within the City of Livonia I think history has shown
that a good restaurant has been overly successful . If you have
a good operation, you will do well . Cookers and the new
Italian restaurant at Haggerty and Seven Mile, as well as the
41w Plymouth Road restaurants, all reflect that. I think if you
look at the sales of Dennisons and Max & Ermas, they will tell
you they are doing beyond what they ever expected. I don't
think we are oversaturing the market because of the use. It is
different. Secondly, we know for a fact we don't have enough
seats and we can't serve enough food at that location because
of the number of people that are there. We have destination
shoppers coupled with the thousands and thousands of people
that go through the theaters on the weekends. With respect to
the liquor license, I think that is coupled and goes hand in
hand with the business that the restaurants do, so my answer is
no.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to the restaurant. I think a Chinese
restaurant gives you a nice balance there. As you know, we
only have four licenses left in town. I think one of those is
already spoken for and if we give you one we are down to two.
We are getting to a point where we have to pick and choose. I
have a concern of having too many liquor licenses at one
location where we still have the north end of the City, the
Victor property and up in that area, where a lot of building is
going to go on there in the future, and if we have an
opportunity to get some nice restaurants there, we are going to
be out in left field because we have no licenses left. That is
a concern.
13792
Mr. Polsinelli : I think the same view should go towards this operation. It is
a worthwhile operation. It adds to the success of what is
already there. I would hate to have it rejected.
`''w There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-2-32 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-199-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-10-2-32 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to operate
a full service restaurant within the Laurel Park Place shopping
center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile
Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-10-2-32
except for the signage shown on the exterior building elevation
which must first be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals because
it does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to no more than
190 customer seats.
2) That the building elevation plan marked Sheet 2 dated 9-26-94
prepared by DiMattia Associates, Architects which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
'o► 3) That this approval does not include the proposed signage shown on
the exterior building elevation.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11 .03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to an in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Piercecchi : Ordinarily I would be very reluctant to grant a waiver use to a
restaurant where there are eight others in the package.
However, I feel that this particular fair and unique approach
would have minimal effect. It will obviously have some effect
on the other restaurants but minimal , and I think it is a good
addition to that package.
13793
Mr. Engebretson: I think I can verify that Mr. Polsinelli understates the demand
at the shopping center for restaurant services. Even at 2:30
in the afternoon it can be a struggle to find a seat in some of
,` the restaurants at that end of the mall , so the demand is
surely there.
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
94-10-2-33 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to utilize
a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant located in
the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we can skip the formalities. Mr. Nagy, is there any
separate correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department has a report in connection with this
one. They indicate that the site plan for the petition has
been reviewed. The proposal will not change or increase the
parking requirements that currently exist nor create any
additional deficiencies at the site. There are currently
several established businesses in the Laurel Park complex that
hold Class C licenses that are within 1000 feet of this
proposal . The utilization of a Class C license will require
the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Polsinelli do you want to add anything here for the record?
Mr. Polsinelli : We pretty much described the operation.
Mr. Engebretson: Your comments stand based on what was discussed earlier.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't think it would be improper to give this petitioner a
liquor license because I think to compete with Dennison's and
Max & Ermas he has to have a fair shake.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#12-200-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-10-2-33 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to utilize
a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant located in
the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-2-33 be approved
subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation rule by the City
Council for the following reasons:
13794
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That 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
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine: I am going to vote against the liquor license. I am basing it
on the fact I think the shopping center is well served with
liquor licenses. Secondly, the petitioner has stated that out
of a million dollar business only 8% of his business is liquor,
which is only $80,000. Therefore, it seems to me the business
is going to be successful without a liquor license. Because of
the fact we have such a few liquor licenses left, I am going to
vote against this at this particular location.
Mr. McCann: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine on a whole lot of the aspects.
As far as the City we have only four available. Tonight we are
here to decide whether the planning is appropriate. I guess my
feeling is he uses 8%, and that is a lot less than other
restaurants use. However, it may still be an essential part to
his business. Is it appropriate in this section of the mall to
`"' have a liquor license? I don't see any difference between this
and the Dennisons or the Max and Ermas. It would be as
appropriate to use a liquor license at this establishment as it
is theirs, therefore, I am going to vote for it.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi , Morrow,
Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
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
94-10-2-34 by Bottles & Stuff II requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an SDD license for an existing store located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
13795
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal .
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal 's office
`,,, stating they have no objections to this proposal . Lastly, we
have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
the proposal to utilize an SDD license at this location will
require City Council to waive the 1000 foot separation required
by Section 11 .03(R)(1 ) since Perry Drugs is located within 1000
feet of the proposed site.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
David Field, 2230 Buhl Building, Detroit: I am also an owner of Bottles &
Stuff. I have been for 14 years with Mr. Lombardi . Mr. Nagy
knows I have been here before on two occasions. I got through
the City Council but I can't get through this committee because
there is a 1000 foot rule requirement, and as I understand it
your hands are pretty much tied. While I have the chance I
will give it a little pitch and maybe it will get back to the
Council . This location has been in existence for almost 40
years. I think that building was built in the 50s. It has
been beer and wine and deli for the past 40 years. We have
owned it for about 14 years. It is a well run establishment.
It is one of the few left that is run with local ownership.
With the situation with beer and wine today it is very
difficult for any business that just sells beer and wine to
stay in business. If the trend continues, I would say within
the next ten years there will not be any small stores. There
is probably not going to be a Showermans. There is going to be
Arbor Drugs and perhaps Farmer Jacks that sells liquor. There
isn't going to be a store that caters to the community.
This particular change, if it was granted, really wouldn't
change our traffic at all . It wouldn't change the fact that we
sell alcohol because we do. We sell beer and wine. What it
would do is allow us to serve the community in a fuller fashion
than we can now. Currently we have people, particularly at the
holidays, who are long-standing customers. They buy their
beer. They buy their wine. They buy their deli , and then they
have to go somewhere else to buy their liquor. That is an
inconvenience to the community as a whole.
There was some mention of percentages. We would suspect that
we would sell about $120,000 to $150,000 worth of liquor a
year. Currently that store does about $600,000 so it would
have a substantial impact and it would allow us to continue in
business.
The Engineering Department said fine. The Fire Marshal said
fine. The building inspector stated about the 1000 foot rule.
I think that pretty much puts the discussion at an end because
as I said by history we have been here twice before. The City
13796
Council has agreed with us but we had a problem with the
locally held store across the street in the C-1 on the
northeast corner, and that was Fairlane Drugs. They always
ti,,, stood up and yelled and screamed and when we got to Lansing we
were always turned down.
What we are doing here is asking for a transfer of an existing
license that has been held in escrow for the last five years,
doing none of the citizens of Livonia any good at all . Again,
we are purchasing that license and transferring it to that
location. Some of you might live in the area. Currently there
is on the southwest corner one license at Perry Drugs, and to
the north at Six Mile and Newburgh there is another Perry. We
would therefore like to have you give us a vote of confidence
on this and see if we can proceed to purchase this license and
have it transferred in there to serve the community in a little
fuller fashion and continue to do so because it is very
strenuous out there to stay in business under current economic
conditions.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Field, when you were turned down before by the Liquor
Control , that was based on the drugstore putting up an
objection to being so close to you and not because of any
separation as it relates to feet or anything like that?
Mr. Field: We are still within the 1000 feet. I think the LCC rules are
pretty much like the Livonia ordinance. What happened was
Fairlane was a small chain of drugstores and they had
representation and everything else. We applied, by the way, to
the state prior to the issuance of Perry getting their license
at the southwest corner. We could have objected and stood in
their way but we had been talking to those people and we
understood they would not stand in our way if we sought a
transfer of license, but that was not the case five years ago.
We took them to Circuit Court and went through the whole deal
but nothing turned out and we were disappointed.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Field, I have been in your store various times. If you
were successful , where would you put this liquor in your
facility?
Mr. Field: Next time you are in there take a look where the cigarettes are
right along the window behind the cash register. That is all
liquor shelves there.
Mr. Alanskas: That is not that large.
Mr. Field: We can also expand toward the deli area or we can relocate the
registers on the south side of the building. There is about 40
feet there. I think we are going to do real well when we have
liquor in there. That is going to be a wonderful problem to
have. Many of the drugstores carry only the top sellers. We
13797
have also had experience with a liquor store. We had one in
Garden City at Warren and Venoy. We had a rather large liquor
selection. That is one of the things if you buy liquor, and I
�., always think of Showermans when I think of a large liquor
selection because it was a specialty with them, whereas Perry
Drugs have the top five brands. We have enough square footage
in that store to eliminate groceries and add liquor. When I
say groceries, I don't mean deli items, but paper plates and
that type of things, to put a good size liquor section in
there.
Mr. Alanskas: To take care of your customers?
Mr. Field: Yes.
Mrs. Blomberg: I am one of your really good customers but I really like the
grocery stuff there, and that is the big reason I go in there.
I also see this as being a place where the kids stop after
school . It is a really nice little corner store. I like it.
Mr. Field: Thank you. If we are nice to the kids, they bring their
parents in. It is very difficult, particularly over the past
few years where the gas stations have gone into mini-markets,
and they sell everything. It is more convenient for them, so
it is much more difficult to stay in business.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on Mr. Morrow's question but rather
than trying to articulate what the scenario was back in 1988,
*041.1. 1989 and 1990, I would like to ask you to describe in your
words what took place after you received approval from the City
in 1988 and two subsequent one-year extensions giving you a
total of three years to go through the process with the state.
What happened?
Mr. Field: Maybe I don't quite understand. We were approved by the City
for the new liquor license in 1988 and we went to the state and
they denied us. Then we took them to Circuit Court. You may
be looking at the investigation on the license we are trying to
get, which has been held in escrow, because I don't recall ,
maybe the extensions were granted when the court case was going
on.
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us again what the issue was in court.
Mr. Field: The issue was we had Fairlane Drugs across the street. They
had representation, and strenuously objected. It was a new
issue license for the City and, as you know, new issue licenses
are very difficult to get through the City. We got through the
City twice. Our position was always the City fathers probably
knew what their populace needed to be serviced best by the
location of these licenses. However, Fairlane got involved
very heavily and apparently once the LCC, any type of
13798
governmental group like that acts, it takes an Act of God to
turn it around. I think you have to show they are arbitrary
and capricious and that is a very difficult standard. I think
we are in a much different situation now because we have an
existing license that is in escrow, and has been for four to
five years, and we understand that Perry will not say anything
because they do not feel we are a threat to them. They are
just offering liquor as an added store option for the customer
where it will be a very important option to us. I don't know
if I can say anything better than that but it was always my
position that the community should, particularly Livonia, have
a better idea what their citizens need and how to service them.
Also, I don't think the LCC really cares about Livonia a lot.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for your comments.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-2-34 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#12-201-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 13, 1994 on Petition 94-10-2-34
by Bottles & Stuff II requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
SDD license for an existing store located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-2-34 be
approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation rule and
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That there are only two existing SDD licensed facilities located
within a one-half mile of this location.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi , Engebretson
NAYS: Blomberg, Morrow
ABSENT: None
13799
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
r.. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-3-8
by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate a storm sewer easement
on Lots 53 and 54, Western Golf Estates Subdivision, located on
Santa Anita Avenue between Jamison Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating inasmuch as the above easement has been abandoned and
relocated with construction in the Western Golf Estates
Subdivision, this office has no objections to vacating this
original easement area. It is the obligation of the developer
of the subdivision to remove and abandon the original storm
sewer system within this easement area.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: The only thing I might add, in the
process of subdividing there was an existing 18 inch storm
sewer that is shown in the crosshatch. In the process of
creating the new storm sewer system I relocated the sewer. The
new sewer goes on the common line between Lots 53 and 54. At
the same time, upon completion of the new sewer system which
was approved by your engineering, we removed the existing pipe,
backfilled it properly and it is now a building site. In fact,
right now it encumbers the building site, and that is the
reason for this request. It is really a housekeeping thing in
my opinion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-202-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 13, 1994 on Petition 94-9-3-8
by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate a storm sewer easement
on Lots 53 and 54, Western Golf Estates Subdivision, located on
Santa Anita Avenue between Jamison Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-3-8 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public
utility.
2) That a new easement has been established so as to protect an
existing storm sewer in the area.
13800
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances.
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 94-9-3-9
by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement and/or alley
in the rear of Lots 1 through 10, Horton's Newburgh Subdivision,
located west of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating since there are no City maintained utilities within the
easement areas in question, their office has no objections to
vacating these easements.
Mr. Roskelly: This is my second housecleaning chore for the evening. This
subdivision was platted in 1917. At that time, what is
represented as the easement I refer to existed, and/or alley as
noted in the original plat existed and it has been sitting
there since the beginning of time. I have gone to your
Engineering Department. I have gone to title companies, and
nobody seems to ever recite this simply because it is in the
,,,,r, form of restrictions on the 1917 recorded subdivision on the
screen. This is the Sanford Dance Studios. You will recall I
was before you when that was under construction. If you will
notice the building really lies above this so-called unused,
abandoned alley/easement, whatever it may be. The existing
building to the east, that same alley or easement is under the
building, and really the land in fee title is somewhat
encumbered. Therefore, I am attempting to get this vacated so
at some time some bank financier doesn't get wise and say you
are over an easement. Get out. Again, it is a housekeeping
chore.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-203-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-9-3-9 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement
and/or alley in the rear of Lots 1 through 10, Horton's Newburgh
Subdivision, located west of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail
and Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 94-9-3-9 be approved for the following reasons:
13801
1) That the subject easements are no longer needed to protect any
public utility.
N,,, 2) That no public utility companies or City departments have
objected to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances.
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
94-9-3-10 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement
for storm water drainage located on Lots 4 through 7 of proposed
Fargo Woods Subdivision located east of Merriman Road between
Pembroke Avenue and Fargo Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating since the easement areas to be vacated are contained
within the proposed Fargo Woods Subdivision, a similar easement
for storm sewer purposes should be shown on the face of the
proposed plat. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
proposed ordinance related to this petition, as well as the
execution of the final plat by the City Clerk, should be held in
abeyance until it can be demonstrated that new easements are
being recorded with the new plat. Subject to the above
condition, this office has no objections to vacating two open
drain easements.
Mr. Roskelly: This housekeeping chore may be a little dirtier than the last.
As we referred to the east and west easement, that specifically
was an open drain easement to drain the property to the east.
Since then a sewer has been placed in there, and we are
draining that. The one parallel to Merriman Road, that deed
was given years ago by a Mr. Cummings who owned the land
perhaps thirty years ago. Since then a new deed has been
issued parallel to and over the same land in Merriman, just
inside the right of way if you continue that all the way down.
It will be shown on the final plat. I have a copy but it has
not been submitted to the City, but in dealing with the
Engineering Department I am showing a 25 foot private easement
for storm sewer, which will come up on the final plat. Again,
the chore is which came first the chicken or the egg. You
certainly are not going to vacate either of these until I prove
that we have a new one so at time of submission of this plat,
which shows the easement that will be vacated, and it encumbers
one lot, I wanted to get ahead of this game so when the plat is
recorded we can then initiate and proceed with the dedication
of that easement.
13802
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-10 closed.
Now On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-204-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on Petition 94-9-3-10 by William L.
Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement for storm water drainage
located on Lots 4 through 7 of proposed Fargo Woods Subdivision
located east of Merriman Road between Pembroke Avenue and Fargo
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-9-3-10 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the subject easements are no longer needed to protect any
public utility.
2) That new easements have been established in the area to protect
storm drains as shown on the Final Plat for Fargo Woods
Subdivision.
3) That no City departments or public utility companies have
objected to the vacating of the subject easement providing that
the Final Plat for Fargo Woods Subdivision contains the new
easement areas.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
r, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located east of
Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins Avenue,
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Parks and Recreation
Department stating they found no discrepancies or problems
associated with the proposal as submitted. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal 's office stating their
department has no objection to the development of this
subdivision contingent upon an approved water main and fire
hydrants. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau
stating the Police Department has no objections and/or concerns
with respect to discrepancies and problems which it may create.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Engineering
Department stating their office has no objection to the
proposed plat. They further state the proposed street name of
"Hickory Street" will require revision inasmuch as it will
conflict with Hickory Lane in Section 6. (Vasser Avenue is a
suggested alternative) .
13803
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Matt Glover, 15256 Adams Ct. , Livonia: I am President of Hickory Oaks
�.. Development Company. This particular sub, before I purchased
the land, was going to be a site condo, and it was proposed to
Mr. Nagy a few months ago. I changed that to be a platted sub
that had 28 lots and I have come down to 26 to put more
quality and larger homes on the land. Another thing, I have
proposed the subdivision to have a 1400 square foot limitation
for the houses with brick fronts on the homes also. I am
trying to make a quality subdivision here. I have talked to
Father O'Brien, who sold the land, to discuss the proposed
street name, and he would like to have it named Cushing Avenue,
which was St. Priscilla's founder, which is what I would
probably change it to. Generally the houses will be around
$150,000 to $180,000. I wouldn't expect them to be more
expensive than that.
Mr. Piercecchi : Was this property purchased from the church?
Mr. Glover: Yes it was. They originally had it planned for a school, and
they are not going to build that so they deciced to sell the
land.
Mr. Piercecchi : Why was R-1 selected rather than R-2 or R-3?
Mr. Glover: I didn't select the zoning. It was zoned R-1
+r,,,,. Mr. Piercecchi : The preliminary plat showed an area for a private park. Who is
going to maintain the park?
Mr. Glover: I don't really have a solution to that right now. It is just a
general use park. I don't have any solutions at this time.
Mr. Engebretson: As the developer is it your intent to landscape the park?
Mr. Glover: We are talking about a small berm that would run across the
back and the other area would be seeded.
Mr. LaPine: Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, are they all going to face Purlingbrook
Avenue?
Mr. Glover: Yes they are.
Mr. LaPine: One lot confuses me, Lot 8, what would go on it because it
narrows out to the back? Would a ranch go on it?
Mr. Glover: All of these lots could fit a ranch that was 50 feet wide.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have a combination of ranches and colonials?
13804
Mr. Glover: My first thought is ranches and colonials. I am selling a lot
of ranches in Livonia so I assume that ranches will sell real
well in there. I do have a colonial plan and there is another
'`., builder that will be building in here.
Mr. LaPine: Will you give the buyer of the home the option of having all
brick?
Mr. Glover: Yes, also a brick belt as another option. Not going all the
way up to save the customer money.
Mr. McCann: You said a brick belt. It won't go all the way around the
home?
Mr. Glover: It would go around the back of the house as another
possibility.
Mr. McCann: You started out tonight saying you were going to put in some
deed restrictions, one of them being 1400 foot, one that the
front would be all brick. Now you are talking about half brick
fronts.
Mr. Glover: No, Mr. LaPine was asking me if I would give them the option to
have more brick on the house, and I said you can have a brick
belt on the back of the house rather than vinyl siding.
Mr. McCann: You have asked for a variance regarding the open space
requirement. Did you try to work that out. Would you lose one
lot to meet the open space requirement?
Mr. Glover: I didn't know there was a variance on the open space.
Mr. Nagy: The subdivision rules and regulations of the City of Livonia
require that for every lot you shall set aside 720 square feet.
Take that number times the lots that are proposed here equals
the 4/10 of an acre that Mr. McCann is alluding to. Since you
didn't provide for the park, we assumed that you are asking for
a variance of the open space dedication requirement for the
reason that 4/10th of an acre park in this area, since it
cannot be contiguous to an already existing park, that amount
of park land is rather meaningless in terms of the overall
benefit to the subdivision.
Mr. Glover: The existing park would not be enough?
Mr. Nagy: It is a move in the right direction but it is not enough by
itself.
Mr. Glover: I have already cut this down from 28 lots as a site condo to 26
lots.
Mr. McCann: It is not zoned for condos?
Mr. Glover: It could have been proposed for site condos.
13805
Mr. Nagy: Subject to petition, it is permitted within the R-1 with
Planning Commission and City Council approval .
r., Mr. Glover: My partner and I would be asking to get that variance approved.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, isn't that regularly waived?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. When it is so small , unless it can be made part of a
larger park so it would be more beneficial , we tend to waive it
and look for something better by way of enhanced landscaping,
screening, things of that nature, to benefit the subdivision
rather than just a small residual piece of property.
Mr. Engebretson: It certainly makes sense in this case.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately these little parks like this, once
the subdivision is completed the developer moves on and the
park becomes a part of the civic association and they are
required to take care of it and unfortunately over a period of
time, from my experience because we had one, the park went to
pot because no one wanted to cut it, no one wanted to take care
of it, and no one wanted to pay their dues so you have an
eyesore there.
Mr. Engebretson: Does he need ZBA approval or can we waive that?
Mr. Nagy: You can waive that. The subdivision rules and regulations that
the Planning Commission administers puts it within your
*oft. discretion.
Mr. Engebretson: I would propose that if this plat is seen fit to be approved,
that we waive it entirely and allow you to attach what is now
planned for park, let it be what it will become by default, the
responsibility of that particular property owner.
Carol Butcher, 19549 Purlingbrook: I have a couple of questions. When the lady
donated the property to the parish for the church use, was it
zoned R-1 then?
Mr. Nagy: I can only tell you when the zoning was established on the
property. I cannot tell you when the lady may have donated the
property. It goes way back to township days. It goes back to
the mid 60s actually. It is not a recent zoning change.
Mr. Engebretson: Perhaps this lady knows when the gift was made.
Ms. Butcher: I don't know. My husband has lived in the City since the 40s
and served with the Police Department for 30 years, and I have
been here for 25 years, so we hear a lot of things and learn a
lot from a lot of people so I am not sure where this
information came from. I do know when we bought our property
there was an easement on it, and it was originally 5/8th of an
13806
acre and we had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to build
on 1/2 acre directly across the street. That property is
contiguous to three high-rise senior citizen facilities, and
L that is a dead end street, and that is a bad corner. There are
a lot of accidents, and that is going to add a lot of
congestion. How would you find out if there were any
restrictions to that gift that it be used for parish use?
Mr. Engebretson: I suppose you talk to the people that would have administered
it along the way. I don't know that the City would have that
information on file.
Mr. Nagy: Those are private matters between the parties of interest. It
is not a municipal matter. The City would not have joined in
that. It is really a matter of having the proper parties of
interest review whatever deed restrictions or conditions that
may be attached to the land but the City of Livonia would not
have been a party to that.
Mr. Engebretson: What is happening here madam is that the zoning does exist.
What we are dealing with tonight is to see if this proposed
plat meets the requirements of the ordinance, and it apparently
does; to see if the Fire Department and the Police Department
have any concerns about health, safety, welfare issues as it
pertains to the impact of this proposal on the neighborhood as
a whole, and this particular area in particular. As we have
heard none of those particular issues have been raised as
points of concern, and it appears that all of the lots do meet
i,` the requirements.
Ms. Butler: As a former member of the Housing Commission, I wonder why, I
know the Housing Commission has long sought that property to
build more Silver Village type of apartments, it wasn't
available to them?
Mr. Engebretson: Again, that is a matter of private commerce. I don't suppose
anyone here in this room would have knowledge of that except
Mr. Nagy there.
Mr. Nagy: I do know the land was offered to our Housing Commission and
they passed on it. The church gave the City the first right to
purchase the property.
Mr. Engebretson: When was that John?
Mr. Nagy: In the recent past. The Housing Commission was given the
opportunity and decided to pass.
Ms. Butler: As a neighbor I am concerned about the congestion and the
additional traffic. It is a very dense area in spite of the
fact that it is rural urban farm across the street and we live
on 5/8ths of an acre. There are hundreds of people that live
in McNamara Towers and the other senior development, and this
is going to add a lot of congestion to a very small street. I
N..- thought that was your job to worry about those things.
13807
Mr. Engebretson: It is to the extent of what I tried to describe to you as far
as the impact on these roads. Without meaning to trivialize
your concerns, because I certainly don't want to do that, I can
assure you that every time a subdivision is proposed, whether
it is 7 houses or 70 houses, there is an impact on the traffic
in that neighborhood, and people have that concern. There is
just nothing we can do about that. We would stop everything if
we were to look at that as the deciding factor. The owner of
the property has a right to build as long as he meets all of
the requirements, and he apparently does. It would be my
impression that this is likely to be a successful venture, but
this is just the beginning of the process. It goes from here,
if it is approved, to the City Council . As you may have heard
earlier, they don't hold a public hearing but they do rule on
it. They have the final determination as to whether this plat
will be approved or not, and then assuming that happens the
process goes on where various engineering and other issues are
looked into to make sure there is no hidden impact on the
community as a whole. If everything is in order, then the
final plat goes through for approval . It is a long process.
This is just the beginning.
Ms. Butler: Based on the same rationale that you will have to make your
decision, am I going to be spinning my wheels going to the City
Council?
Mr. Engebretson: The issue is does the petitioner meet all the requirements of
the ordinance? If the petitioner meets those requirements,
'*411. then the City has no basis on which to deny the proposal unless
there is some impact, such as drainage, that by building these
homes will that cause some flooding to occur in the
neighborhood? Those kinds of issues are determined by the
Engineering Department after this preliminary plat process is
completed by the City Council . Basically they make their
decision on the same basis that we make ours, that is as I
described to you. Whether it would be appropriate for you to
take the time to appear before the City Council , I can't advise
you on that. You have to make that call yourself, but I think
in between the lines here I may be giving you the message that
it would be useful to you.
Ms. Butler: To generate a rezoning, that is only done by the City?
Mr. Engebretson: Landowners, and the City under some very special circumstances,
can initiate a zoning change request, but if that zoning change
is protested by the landowner, the City Council needs to have a
super majority vote, 6 out of 7. It is a very difficult thing
to do and it is very difficult to defend in court because it
comes down to a taking of property. That is risky business.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to add that the concerns you are expressing here
tonight are more of a zoning nature when you worry about the
13808
impact and is that an appropriate size lot for that area,
because the zoning is in place as the Chairman indicated. It
is more of a technical review to make sure the preliminary plat
fits the plat act and fits our ordinances.
4011,
Ms. Butler: I appreciate what you are saying. Between us, my husband and I
have been in the City 75 years. Since we have built this house
with a great deal of effort, McNamara Towers has changed from a
senior citizen to one for handicapped people also. Down the
street from me they put in a group home, and they said they
couldn't put them closer than 1500 feet apart. When I checked,
I found out the new house that was two doors from me was really
Wayne County assisted living. Now this is coming. I get the
feeling you are asking me to leave.
Mr. Engebretson: If it makes you feel any better, 100 or more houses were built
down the street from me. My house is on a street between those
houses and an elementary school . Did we get some more traffic
as a result of that? Yes we did. Have we survived it? We
have. As Mr. Taylor, the Council President, has stated
"Livonia's real traffic problems occurred the day I decided to
buy a house here" . Again, without wanting to trivialize these
points of concerns, it is amazing how we do adapt, and I hope
it works out well in your neighborhood too assuming that all
this goes through, and I have a feeling it will .
Art Fortocci , 19151 Purlingbrook: All the lots on that street are 1/2 acre lots.
How come he can build on a 60 foot lot?
'vr.. Mr. Engebretson: Because the zoning says he can. The area is zoned R-1 and R-1
requires 60'x 120' lot configuration. Mr. Nagy, I would like
to ask you to verify for those in the audience, while I don't
know that it has been stated explicitly, I think it has been
implied, these lots do, in fact, meet the requirements.
Mr. Nagy: We, along with the other City departments, and we read the
correspondence where it was all evaluated, agree that the plat
meets the zoning established on the property, which is R-1, and
R-1 is a single family residential zoning classification which
requires that the minimum lot would be 60 feet wide at the
building line, which is 25 feet back from the right-of-way
line, and the depth of the property shall be at least 120 feet,
and that the area of the lots shall be no less than 7200 square
feet. All those lots that are delineated on that plan meet, in
fact in most cases they exceed, those minimum requirements.
From a zoning standpoint and platting standpoint the plan does
meet the requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations,
with the exception of the open space, which has already been
commented on. It certainly meets the requirements of the R-1
district regulations.
Mr. Fortocci : Personally I don't think it is right. We are stuck over there
with those big lots. We have to pay the big taxes. How about
the sewer system? Now you are putting 26 homes in there. That
13809
is another thing. What road are they going to use for the
construction work if you approve this? Purlingbrook is already
busted up. There is a hole in front of my house that the City
won't fix because the guy who paved it said the City ran out of
`r.y money so he left a hole there. I am sure if any of you go down
Purlingbrook to the senior citizen home, you must have splashed
through that hole. It wakes me up every night.
Mr. Engebretson: John, what are the requirements that the construction folks
would have to adhere to relative to any damage that they may
cause on Purlingbrook?
Mr. Nagy: They will have to post a bond.
Mr. Fortocci : How big of a bond?
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department will evaluate the condition of the
road and they will establish appropriate bond to insure the
restoration of the road if there is any damage done in
connection with the construction of this subdivision. It is a
common practice in the City. In many cases you will find
similar situations where subdivisions are being extended or
developed on streets that are already paved, and to protect
those streets and restore those areas, Engineering will require
a bond, and no bond will be released until inspections are made
and the street is restored to its original condition. The
other alternative is, since the church is the contiguous
property owner, maybe they will take their access across church
property during the time of construction. That is another
alternative Engineering might look at. The City's Engineering
Department is there to protect the public's interest. They
will do their best to see that area is adequately protected
through the bonding of the City of Livonia.
Mr. Fortocci : How about the water? We have barely enough water now. If you
put 26 more homes in there, they are all going to have water
sprinkling systems in. In the summertime when you turn the
sprinklers on, you can only run one little sprinkler. Now you
are adding more to that main, which really wasn't developed for
all those homes.
Mr. Engebretson: These are the issues sir that I was alluding to that are
resolved after the preliminary plat process is approved. You
may or may not be aware that there was a water tap moratorium
on in this area for the past several years, and recently that
moratorium was lifted when the City of Livonia agreed with the
State of Michigan that during water emergency periods there
would be odd/even watering by law, not by voluntary
participation, but by law. So it has been determined that the
water tap moratorium can be lifted and that the development of
these additional residences in that area in the north part of
Livonia can resume. It has been at a standstill as far as new
water taps are concerned for the past several years. That
problem is supposed to go away when this major line is
completed sometime in the next few years and we all hope that
�'�' it does.
13810
Mr. Fortocci : When you are saying brick front, I know what it is. Brick
fronts but not along the sides. That is going to downgrade all
of the neighborhood. When you mention you are going to build a
`.. $150,000 house with a 1400 square foot home, are you going to
have attached garages?
Mr. Engebretson: Under normal circumstances, at this point, the petitioners
bring site elevations of what they plan to do. I don't know if
he has that with him, but if so, I would like to ask him to
present them at this time.
(The petitioner presented the elevations plans. )
Mr. Engebretson: I will just mention to you sir a personal observation. Even
though we haven't pursued the issue of brick here this evening,
I think I can anticipate the City Council will pursue that very
vigorously. I don't think it is likely he is going to be able
to construct homes there with a belt of brick that comes up to
the window based on past proposals to do that having failed.
The City Council , again, will deal with this issue and we have
to leave a little bit of work for them to do.
Mr. Fortocci : Is there an ordinance in the City of Livonia whether you can
have brick or can you build all wood?
Mr. Engebretson: There is no ordinance.
Mr. Fortocci : So he says he is going to have brick but that doesn't mean he
`, is going to have it.
Mr. Engebretson: Well yes it does.
Mr. Fortocci : I am thinking of my home and I am thinking of the rest of the
people that live in the area. So far, it has been going
downhill . I have nothing against senior citizens. I am one
myself, but you built one senior citizen home and said HUD
built it. Then you built another one, and then another one
next to it. We have three halfway homes in the area, and maybe
more. The reason for that is it is close to the church. I
never see them going to church. You can count how many go to
church from the senior citizen homes.
Mr. Engebretson: We are really not in a position to debate those issues with you
tonight. We need to confine our discussion to what is going on
with this proposed preliminary plat.
(Petitioner presented further plans. )
Mr. Engebretson: I would encourage you by the time you leave here tonight, or
surely by the time you reach Council , that you be prepared to
deal with brick half way up the house. I think it is
appropriate for you to do that. If it were up to me, I would
13811
demand and require brick half way up and that could wind up
here tonight before the night is over.
`..► Mr. Piercecchi : I know we are here to approve a plat but I would like to ask a
question inasmuch as the area has been approached about brick.
Does it cost that much to make it all brick?
Mr. Glover: This home would be $150,000. When you talk about bricking the
other part of that home, it would cost about $5,000 to $6,000
extra. I would start the homes at $156,000. That is possible.
That would be in the correct range for what we could sell over
there. I was looking at the current prices of the homes that
have sold in the area and they were around $150,000.
Mr. Fortocci : I told you I didn't like it. If they were bigger lots, it
wouldn't be bad. Less homes, maybe they wouldn't make as much
money but I think they would sell the homes there if they were
bigger lots.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand your point of view sir. It is R-1 zoning and
that is what we are stuck with right now.
Mr. Fortocci : Just that one little section is R-1 zoning so in other words
they can build what they want? I understand he can't build
colonials there.
Mr. Engebretson: You haven't been listening tonight then if you understand that
because it has been stated quite clearly that there would be
r,,,, ranches and colonials built in that subdivision. I heard that.
I know the minutes will reflect that so I don't know what your
concern would be about that.
Mr. Fortocci : I have nothing against colonials. I just don't like the amount
of homes going in that small area.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. Unfortunately, that is the number of homes
that can fit into an R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Fortocci : The City is going to guarantee that the water supply is going
to be adequate?
Mr. Engebretson: That is not an issue here tonight.
Mr. Fortocci : I understand when it first came up they were supposed to put in
their own main line going into that water service. Not use
that main line that is off of Purlingbrook.
Mr. Engebretson: That is an engineering concern. I can't really comment on
that. Basically we are dealing with a layout of the lots and
what goes on those lots. All the other things are preordained.
Mr. Fortocci : And the police say it will be safe?
13812
Mr. Engebretson: Yes. They can get equipment in there. They can get ambulances
in there. They can get fire trucks in there.
Joe Marinelli : I am speaking on behalf of my parents. They live at 19351
Purlingbrook. They also have concerns about the size of the
lots. If you look at some of these lots, they are about 1/4
the size of the ones across the street. There are like two
houses on one side of the street, and there will be five on the
other side. They are also concerned about the value of their
house. All the houses around this sub, the value or size of
the lots are somewhat bigger than what is going in there. You
say 60 feet across. I don't know if that is normal for
Livonia. I haven't seen that size lot in Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: They are all over the City, and really, with respect sir, it is
not an issue for the reasons that have been articulated
earlier.
Mr. Marinelli : With respect to the R-1 zoning, when was it changed?
Mr. Nagy: The mid 60s.
Mr. Marinelli : Do I have a case or do you think those are pretty good size
lots?
Mr. Engebretson: It fits the zoning district sir. The R-1 zoning district is
for numerous types and it defines a certain size lot. When the
zoning occurred these lots didn't exist. They don't exist now.
r... That is what we are doing here tonight. The question then is
do each of these lots as presented meet the ordinance? The
answer is they do. That is what we are here for. As far as
your having a case, I am not sure what your proposed case is,
but if it is anything to do with the question of whether or not
this land should be developed in an R-1 zoning district, I
guess I would have to conclude no because the zoning has been
in place for your lifetime.
Mr. Marinelli : We are just concerned about the area. All around there the
lots seem to be bigger, especially on our street and they are
putting in a quarter size of the lot. It seems like it would
bring down the value of the homes.
Mr. Engebretson: Not necessarily. Mr. Fortocci , do you have something new?
Mr. Fortocci : Can the church sell that property with the R-1 zoning on it for
someone else to build homes on it?
Mr. Engebretson: Why shouldn't they?
Mr. Fortocci : It was designated for a school wasn't it?
Mr. Engebretson: The plan that the church had, as I understand it, was to put a
13813
school there at sometime, and then they changed their mind.
They own the property. They have the right to sell the
property. I don't know on what basis the City could interfere
N► with the sale of private property.
Mr. Nagy: The church already sold a portion of that to expand the parking
lot at Livonia Mall . There has already been a precedent for it
on this property.
Mr. Engebretson: I can't imagine how the City would be involved in preventing
any landowner from selling their property.
Mr. Nagy: That is why the City, from a municipal standpoint, puts a
zoning classification on the property to regulate the land.
The basis for the R-1 zoning, putting the zoning classification
on the property, is to regulate the development so in the event
it isn't used for church purposes or used for accessory
purposes or any other purposes, there is already in place a
zoning district to properly regulate the development of that
property.
Mr. Fortocci : Is that the only area there that is zoned R-1?
Mr. Engebretson: The entire parcel the church is on is zoned R-1 .
Mr. Fortocci : Is the McNamara building R-1 too?
Mr. Nagy: The McNamara building is in a senior high-rise zoning
classification. The R-9 is an elderly housing classification
which allows the high-rise buildings. The R-8 similarly allows
the residential housing up to a four-story building and the R-9
III allows up to the 12-stories that you see where the Ziegler
place is. There are other residential zoning classifications
on the east side of Purlingbrook that accommodate a variety of
housing uses and housing building heights.
Mr. Engebretson: We do understand your feelings but I hope you do understand the
issue at hand is not whether or not it should be the R-1 zoning
that has been in place for 30 years. The questions is do they
meet the ordinance for defining these lots to fit the R-1
zoning district, and it appears that they do.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the preliminary plat
approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-205-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary
13814
Plat approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located
east of Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins
Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning
o.. Commission does hereby waive the open space dedication requirement
set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Hickory
Oak Subdivision be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
#543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the subject land area.
3) That no City department has objected to the approval of the
proposed Preliminary Plat.
4) That before the Final Plat is submitted to the Planning
Commission, there shall be a landscape plan submitted for
Planning Commission review and approval .
5) That the front elevation of all homes shall have full brick and
that on the other three sides brick shall be extended half way
up on those elevations.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in
- the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the
notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of
Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated
October 28, 1994 from P.R.S. Contracting, Inc. requesting relief
from the existing condition calling for "parking of vehicles inside
the auto center only" in connection with Petition 88-4-2-18 by K & S
Development requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto
service center on property located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Hugh and Fremont in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Engebretson: It is my understanding that we received a letter asking
that we take item 10 off the agenda. Mr. Nagy, we visited
there today and I want you to know they have a major parking
13815
problem. Mr. Morrow and Mr. Piercecchi were there over the
weekend and found that the parking lot was full , and they
weren't open for business. I was there today and if every car
on the site was legally parked, they wouldn't have any space to
*t.• park any cars, and they were full on the inside. To quote an
old friend "It's like putting five pounds of coffee into a
three pound can. " I would hope that the note that we received
stating they are rescheduling in part because they are
unavailable and in part because they are re-evaluating their
proposal , I would hope that you would give them the message
that they have some major work to do to get favorable
consideration to this proposal . My concern is if they have the
current condition with no outdoor storage, what would they have
if there was some storage permitted? They have a major problem
there. I would hope you would pass that information on.
Mr. Piercecchi : John, I would like to add to that. My visit on Sunday they
even had cars in the right-of-way.
Mr. Engebretson: The Inspection Department visited them and issued a violation.
Is that how this came about?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Don't let this sit too long. I don't want to allow a problem
to go on any longer than necessary.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
approval for Victor Hill Subdivision proposed to be located between
Northland and Seven Mile Roads, west of Newburgh Road, in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Engebretson: John, is everything in order?
Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. We have letters from the City Clerk
indicating that all financial assurances have been deposited
with their office. The City Engineer, in his letter of
December 2, recommends approval of the final plat as it
complies with the previously approved preliminary plat.
Everything is in order for final plat approval .
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave, do you have anything to add?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: These homes will sell for $250,000 and up. I will
answer any questions.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-206-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Victor Hill Subdivision proposed to be located
between Northland and Seven Mile Roads, west of Newburgh Road, in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, for the following reasons:
13816
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the
Preliminary Plat.
2) That the City Clerk has indicated that all necessary financial
Nifty obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been
paid.
3) That the approval of the Final Plat has been recommended by the
City Engineer.
Mr. Engebretson, 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 694th Regular Meeting held on November 22, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-207-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 694th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on November 22, 1994 are hereby approved.
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
94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to alter the exterior building elevations and by
*r,. Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for one ground sign and one wall
sign for the building located at 19276 Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 .
Mr. Miller: This is the site of the former post office on the east side of
Middlebelt north of Seven Mile Road. They are proposing to
alter the elevations of the building. Most of the changes will
take place on the west elevation facing Middlebelt Road. They
are proposing to relocate the door which is now on the southern
end of the west elevation to the northern end. They will be
replacing the existing windows with new windows throughout the
building. They are also proposing to add a 5 foot wide dryvit
type of material along the top of the building that will go
along the west elevation and wrap around the south and north
elevations. The existing condition in front of the building is
parking. There is no landscaping on the site at the present
time. They are required to have 15% landscaping. They are
proposing to add landscaping to the site in the right-of-way
and on the site in front of the building, which would bring the
landscaping to 7%. Parking, they are required to have 10
spaces. They are proposing to have 11 , one of which is
handicap. The signage for this proposal , they are asking for
one wall sign. They are allowed to have a wall sign at 66
square feet. The sign they are proposing is 62 square feet so
13817
they are within the requirement of the ordinance. They are
also proposing a ground sign. They are allowed to have 30
square feet. They are proposing 29 square feet so they are
within the requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: The landscaping is somewhat deficient but otherwise it is a
conforming proposal . Do you have anything John?
Mr. Nagy: City correspondence is all favorable.
Lee Mamola: I am the architect for the project. I would like to point out
to the Planning Commission that with the other types of uses
permitted within this district, this particular use, that is
of a mattress retail store outlet, is a very low traffic
generator. It does not generally allow itself for a lot of
parking requirements. I don't think you can ask for anything
better than this type of use with this type of existing
structure within the constraints of the existing on-site
circulation. There is ample loading and unloading areas at the
rear of the property. The building and the tenant can be
serviced with minimal impact to the public streets. The ground
sign that is proposed is back behind the sidewalk in a
sufficient manner to not interfere with line vision turning
onto or off of the property in either direction. Currently
there is a curb that is as wide as that property so I believe
this is a significant improvement to the traffic on and off the
property, in addition to the greenbelt, shrubbery and other
landscaping features that will be in the front of the building.
Working with the constraints of the existing structure of the
previous post office building, to one of a retail store, the
constraints were constraining. We have a sample of the facade
material .
Mr. Morrow: Did Mattress Discounters buy the property or are they just
tenants?
Mr. Mamola: I believe they have a long-term lease.
Mr. Piercecchi : Sir, are you aware that you would have to go before the Zoning
Board of Appeals because this is a non-conforming use
termination? Sections (a) and (b) which states a change of the
actual use of a building or parcel of land from a valid
nonconforming use to a use expressly permitted in the district
in which case such discontinuance of such valid nonconforming
use for a period of one year, either as to the whole or any
part of a building or parcel of land, shall be considered an
abandonment of said use. That is Section 18. 18 (a) and (b) .
Mr. Nagy: The building department is looking at that to decide whether
or not an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals is necessary.
13818
Mr. Engebretson: Where does that leave us?
Mr. Nagy: We still have to deal with the external alterations. We have
to deal with whether the building should be altered, and the
matter is being proposed pursuant to the City's control
ordinance associated with Livonia mall .
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the chain link fence in the back. Is that going
to stay there?
Mr. Mamola: I understand it will be maintained and will stay there. It is
in need of repairs and repairs will be made.
Mr. Alanskas: And possibly repainted?
Mr. Mamola: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: On that elevation that depicted the red on top, my recollection
is that the building is red brick and what we see on the
elevation you have indicates it is a lighter color. Is this
what the building is going to look like?
Mr. Mamola: You are correct that the building is red right now. It is a
burgundy type of brick. This is what the building will look
like when it gets approved. It is a combination of exterior
finish material you see in front of you. There will still be
some of the brick you see out there today but that brick will
be painted to match this color.
,.. Mr. Engebretson: So your rendering is not intended to represent what the
appearance of the building will be after these changes occur?
Mr. Mamola: . Yes it is. The red brick will be painted to match the color of
the dryvit here. The rear of that building will not be
painted. It will be left in the red color.
Mr. Engebretson: In your professional opinion, from an architectural point of
view, is that going to be aesthetically pleasing?
Mr. Mamola: I don't have a problem with the appearance of the design and
the aesthetics as it faces the street and the side elevations.
On the one side it is substantially hidden by an existing tire
operation on the south.
Mr. LaPine: The freestanding sign. I went out there today and looked at
that location. Number one, this building sits close to
Middlebelt Road. Therefore, I don't really see why we need the
freestanding sign. I believe at the last meeting a
representative from the mattress company mentioned they had one
other store and that was at Twelve Mile Road and Northwestern
Highway, which I went out and checked that location. That
store sits back approximately 100 feet from Northwestern
13819
Highway where you don't have a freestanding sign at all . All
you have is a sign on the face of the building. If you can get
by with one sign there on the face of the building without a
freestanding sign at a 100 foot setback, I believe you can get
by here. There are a couple of other things I noticed at the
store, and I hope they are not going to be here. At the store
up there you had three neon signs in the windows, and other
signs in the windows about sales. The one thing that really
floored me is the day after we had our last meeting I went out
there. The first row of parking along Northwestern Highway
there was a car parked there with a mattress on top. I assumed
someone had just bought a mattress. A few days later I went
back and the car was still there with the same mattress so I
assumed that is a sign. I went out there today, just to double
check it again, and there was a white pickup truck there with
two signs on it plus on top of the mattress there were
balloons. I hope we are not going to get that kind of
operation here. To me it looked very gaudy. I worry when I
see those type things. I think we can get by without a
freestanding sign. If you look at that sign compared to the
sign at Kids R Us next door, which is a tremendous piece of
property, I think this sign is probably as big, if not larger,
than the sign at the Kids R Us, and you are so close to the
road that the wall sign is going to be sufficient, in my
opinion.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step down. Do you own both of
these stores sir?
.• Charles Spera, 21170 Chubb Road, Northville: No just this one store.
Mr. Engebretson: Is this a franchise type of business? What is your
relationship to the other store that Mr. LaPine was referring
to?
Mr. Spera: I have no relationship. The tenant leases space apparently in
the other shopping center and has chosen to lease this
building. I am just the landlord. I have nothing to do with
the operation of the store.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the operator of the store here?
Mr. Spera: No.
Mr. Engebretson': As the owner of the store you are presenting the petition on
behalf of your proposed tenant to make these alterations. Is
that correct?
Mr. Spera: I am making the alterations on behalf of the tenant.
Mr. Engebretson: But the tenant is not here tonight to speak to these points of
concern?
Mr. Spera: No. I did reflect on the comment with regard to the mattresses
on top of the car. I haven't seen that but there isn't enough
13820
parking in front of this building the same way as it is at the
other building.
Mr. Engebretson: I may take exception to that sir. The number one parking space
out there could very well have that scenario and I think we are
here to make sure that doesn't happen. I am very disappointed
that the tenant isn't here because I want to make sure it
doesn't happen. I am not exactly sure how to do that without
his presence here.
Mr. Spera: I concur with your feelings on the matter. I don't disagree
with you. I would feel the way that you do. I don't know what
to do other than tell you I would convey your opinions and
feelings to them.
Mr. Engebretson: If we convey an approval , we will convey it with some pretty
well instructed restrictions, assuming we can do that. I think
we can. We have been through this kind of situation before
where we had tractor/trailers parked as signs, 40 foot
billboards in parking lots, and we have learned. Thank you for
coming down sir. I was under the impression that you were the
operator of the store. I am sure you understand the concerns
we have.
Mr. Piercecchi : Inasmuch as you have those concerns, do you want a motion to
table this matter until we get the operator here?
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if we were to give you direction tonight that clearly
expressed the concern of what it was we wanted to accomplish in
a resolution, concerning the fact that this is in the Livonia
N"- Mall Control Zone, concerning the fact that it has to go to the
City Council , realizing they will have the same concerns we do,
do you think we could wrap up a resolution so tightly that we
could prevent that kind of event from ever occurring on this
property both with respect to parked vehicles and/or signage in
the windows?
Mr. Nagy: Yes I am confident we could do that. Also, I have a lot of
confidence in our Inspection Department that that would not be
the case in our City. As you already pointed out, we don't
allow any mobile signs. We don't allow any cars and trucks,
etc. in front of buildings with signs on. Our Ordinance
Enforcement Division is on top of those kinds of things. I
have all the confidence in the Commission's ability to
structure those conditions as well as confidence in our
Inspection Department to make sure that doesn't happen in our
City.
Mr. Engebretson: I expected that you would say that but I just wanted to make
sure if we were to move on this, that you were comfortable that
the proper verbiage could be constructed after the fact, and we
would not be acting in an inappropriate way.
Mr. Piercecchi : I just thought if you were looking for a motion to table this,
I would be happy to make it.
13821
Mr. Engebretson: If we were to look to Mr. Nagy to construct the language that
would protect us against cars and/or trucks and/or any other
type of vehicle and/or balloons, and/or flags, and other things
of that nature.
*414.. Mr. Piercecchi : I don't question, Mr. Chairman, that you could put together a
resolution but it would also be nice to have his testimony in
writing then we would have something to fall back on.
Mr. Engebretson: Then I will leave it in the hands of the Commissioners as to
how we will handle this. A motion is always in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to alter the exterior building elevations
and by Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for one ground sign and
one wall sign for the building located at 19276 Middlebelt Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 .
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman declared the motion failed for lack of support.
Mr. McCann: I guess I would make a recommendation at this point to approve
being that I think the language would be sufficient that we
wouldn't be able to get to this until after the first of the
year, which might unreasonably stall the lease and the
landlord. I believe the ordinance is pretty clear about
outdoor advertising, and I think we could reiterate it in our
�r. resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-208-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter the exterior
building elevations and by Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for
one ground sign and one wall sign for the building located at 19276
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site & Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet A-1 dated
11/28/94 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, and that the landscape materials as
shown shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet A-3 dated 11/28/94 by
Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
13822
3) That the Sign Package by Media Six, Inc. , as submitted as part
of this site plan application and received by the Planning
Commission on 11/22/94 is hereby approved for the wall sign
only.
4) That the tenant is restricted from any other type of outdoor
advertising whatsoever.
5) That there shall be no more than 25% window signage permitted.
6) That the entire parking lot for this site shall be repaved and
restriped.
7) That the entire building shall be painted.
8) That the Planning Commission does hereby approve the 7.8%
landscaping provided and waives the balance of the 15%
landscape requirement.
9) That the petitioner, as represented by his architect, has
agreed to the above conditions.
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
94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to expand the existing commercial building located
at 31450 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Engebretson: We tabled this item from a public hearing held the 1st of
November. We will need a motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-209-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 28.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to expand the existing
commercial building located at 31450 Five Mile Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 15 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, I presume the fact that we are dealing with this
item here tonight would indicate that the Zoning Board of
Appeals has acted on this issue and that the variance needed
was granted. Is that a correct assumption?
Mr. Miller: That is what I was told.
Mr. Engebretson: You may proceed Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller: This is the Showermans site right now. It is located on the
northwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman. They are proposing
to add a 13,600 square foot addition to the existing building.
ti..
13823
By adding this addition it will allow the building to become a
multi-tenant commercial center. The storefront will face
towards Merriman Road with an anchor store located on the north
`.. area of the store. Parking, they are required to have 150
spaces, which they show on the site plan, so they conform to
parking. Landscaping, they are required to have 15%. , which we
reconfigured. I know my notes say 14% but I talked to the
petitioner and Ordinance Enforcement and we reconfigured it and
it is 15%, so the landscaping is conforming to what they are
allowed. As was stated, they needed a variance for the front
yard setback for the existing building off Five Mile Road.
They needed 60 feet. The existing building is 40. The
ordinance states you cannot add to a non-conforming building so
they got a variance for that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and for the record if
you would officially repeat your comments as far as the Zoning
Board action tonight.
Michael Rein: I am from the architectural firm Bowers and Rein Associates,
Inc. I am representing the petitioner this evening. As was
mentioned, we did appear earlier this evening at the gallery on
the fifth floor in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals where
they granted an approval for the front yard deficiency off Five
Mile because of the existing Showermans' facility that is
approximately 20 feet short of what is required off the Five
Mile Road right-of-way. As part of that, just so the Planning
Commission understands fully, we agreed to take down the large
Showermans' sign, which is non-conforming. If the Planning
Commission were to go ahead with site plan approval , the Zoning
Board of Appeals requested that we take that down. Also, in
one year from the time the Certificate of Occupancy is granted,
we will revisit whether the wall needs to be put in. Right now
the variance was continued so we don't have to put the wall in
on the north property line but we promised to revisit that in a
year, talk to the church to see if there have been any
complaints to the Planning and Building Departments and go from
there. As Mr. Miller mentioned, we have discussed with him the
landscape requirements. We felt we were in conformance prior
but just to insure we have taken the sidewalk off at the south
end of the building. We don't have any entrances into the
building there and we have added greenbelt of approximately 3
1/2 feet where we will put some shrubs in there and break up
this side of the building. We do meet all setback requirements
for the remainder of the center with the exception of the
variance requested. We meet the parking requirements
established by the City of Livonia. The owner, and my client,
VCL Associates, is in the audience along with my partner Scott
Bowers to answer any questions you might have.
`..
13824
Mr. LaPine: John, once they got the variance from the Zoning Board of
appeals and meet all the requirements for the landscaping and
meet all the requirements for the setback, there is no real
reason why we can deny it?
Mr. Nagy: There are no technical deficiencies with respect to the
standards.
Mr. Alanskas: Now they can add on to the building because now it is
conforming?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there just going to be one person in that back part?
Mr. Rein: There are no leases signed as of yet. Our ideal would be to
have an anchor tenant.
Mr. Alanskas: And you would have five more tenants?
Mr. Rein: We will have up to five.
Mr. Morrow: Other than what you have covered tonight, has anything else
changed as far as elevations since we last saw this or has it
pretty well remained intact?
Mr. Rein: We have not changed anything.
Mr. Morrow: The only variation is whatever conditions that the ZBA placed
on it for granting the variance?
Mr. Rein: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Are you still pursuing Perry Drugs?
Mr. Rein: There are still ongoing discussions with them but as of today
my client has not signed anything.
Mr. LaPine: But they are still pursuing that?
Mr. Rein: As I understand it.
Mr. McCann: The liquor license, you are not planning on keeping the liquor
store in the mall so that liquor license will go into escrow.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rein: As I understand it, yes it would go into escrow.
Mr. Engebretson: When would the Showermans' operation cease to exist in its
present form?
Mr. Rein: If we were to get site plan approval , with the reconfiguration
of the Honey Baked Ham, I think the Showermans' operation would
cease to exist in very short order. They want out of that
business.
13825
Salem Samaan, 9459 S. Main, Plymouth: I am an attorney. I was present at the
ZBA meeting this evening. Prior to commencement of the meeting
the Chairman stated that any aggrieved party by decision made
by the ZBA would have five days within which to bring an appeal
Nw.. or a suit before the civil court. That being the case, I guess
my question to the Commission is how can the Commission act on
a decision made by the Zoning Board prior to allowing the
aggrieved party, whoever it may be, their chance to appeal the
decision to the court?
Mr. Engebretson: Let me try to answer that, and then I will look to my young
attorney friend to straighten me out if I happen to be wrong.
It is my impression sir that every decision we make is subject
to someone disagreeing with that decision and taking action
in various courts if they feel aggrieved and if they are
motivated to do that. I suppose that if we were to wait until
every process was carried out to the ultimate conclusion, that
very little business would occur if the basic assumption that
every decision we made is subject to appeal to either the City
Council , which is the case in many instances, or to a proper
court of law. Mr. McCann, would you think I am on the right
track here?
Mr. McCann: Yes. In this instance basically all our decisions from this
board regarding variances are subject to, and part of our
reasoning is subject to approval by the ZBA. Their approval
does not become finalized for five days. Ours does not become
finalized for seven days from today's date. So our approval
would not be actually finalized until seven days from today.
Mr. Samaan: That is correct, but my point is the decision that was made by
the ZBA does not become effective for five days. How is it
that this Commission can add on something that has not yet
technically been approved?
Mr. McCann: We have been doing this for a long time. It is the question of
the chicken before the egg. Do you go to the ZBA and get your
variance first or do you go to the Planning Commission and get
your approval there first. For many years it was you went to
the Planning Commission and got your approval and then to the
ZBA. They changed that recently. Now we go to the ZBA first.
We still do many of the items subject to the approval of the
ZBA. That in essence is what this one will be tonight subject
to approval of the ZBA. Ours will be effective seven days from
now.
Mr. Samaan: What you are saying is whatever decision that is made tonight,
will not take effect for 12 days?
Mr. McCann: If something should change within the seven days, if there was
a challenge or a stay with regard to the order of the ZBA, that
would automatically stay ours.
v►
13826
Mr. Samaan: Whatever decision you are making tonight is subject to their
approval?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
`ow Mr. Engebretson: I would like to clarify just one point. Mr. McCann is a
citizen, member of the board, and he happens to be an attorney
but he is not acting as our attorney in this dialogue that we
are having here. He just happens to be an attorney so we look
to him occasionally to help articulate our fumbling and
stumbling.
Mr. Samaan: I understand.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#12-210-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to expand the existing commercial
building located at 31450 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 15 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet SP-1A dated Oct.
18, 1994 by Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. , is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, and that the landscape
materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
`'" 2) That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as
shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of zoning Ordinance #543;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined a sheet A-1 dated Oct. 18,
1994 by Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4) That the parking spaces for the entire shopping center shall be
double striped;
5) That this approval is also subject to the conditions set forth
in the approval by the ZBA.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi , Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13827
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 695th Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on December 13, 1994 was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.
New
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R. Lee Morrow, Secretary ( "
;(
ATTEST: y'(4(.iVj
Jack 'EngebreJson, Chairman
jg