HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-09-20 13632
MINUTES OF THE 690th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 20, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 690th 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 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William T. Pine
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
'4111. 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
94-8-1-17 by Leo Soave Bldg. , Inc. requesting to rezone property
located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF and R-7 to R-1A.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Leo Soave: What I am proposing is to be like a twin of Orangelawn #1.
It would be a 16 lot subdivision. Everything would be the
same. It would be concrete streets. The lots would be
60'x120'. The homes would range from $175,000 to $200,000
with full basements. The way I do business I keep the roads
clean as work progresses. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
13633
Mr. Piercecchi: I looked over the site as we all have. I don't know of any
incompatibility problems but my question would be have you
made an attempt to secure the property adjacent to that? You
New have two big areas there.
Mr. Soave: Are you talking about the piece with the bowling alley?
Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking about, I think, the southern end of Lot 210 and
211.
Mr. Soave: I have been talking to Mr. Winkler who owns the bowling alley.
I have been talking to him for three years and he doesn't have
any intention of selling. As far as he is concerned, he would
rather have parking for cars than anything else. Mr. Winkler
is not interested in selling.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is that other area, Mr. Nagy, going to be landlocked?
Mr. Nagy: There is frontage on Angeline Drive to serve that area and
your petitioner does own that property. Mr. Soave does own
the property west of the bowling alley as well.
Mr. Alanskas: Will there be sidewalks?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: And street lights?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Now
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing
to speak for or against this proposal. Since there is no one
in the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Soave do you have
anything to add?
Mr. Soave: From my experience with the piece, I have been working there
for three years, it is surrounded by commercial zoning and
this is the most logical use of the property, R-1 zoning.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-157-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 20, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-8-1-17 by Leo Soave Bldg. , Inc. requesting to rezone property
located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RDF and R-7 to R-1A, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-8-1-17 be approved for the following reasons:
13634
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical
extension of an existing zoning district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of medium density residential
for the subject property.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent any further
encroachment of commercial uscs into a residential area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-2-28 by Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. requesting waiver use approval
to construct a Builders Square store on property located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Melvin Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to this waiver use
proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection
Department stating the total parking requirement for this site
would be 857 spaces 10' in width, plus an additional 16
handicap spaces 12' in width. The proposed parking for the
entire site is 525 spaces that are 9' in width with no
provision for handicap parking facilities. Additionally, the
west side yard is proposed at a zero setback. Ordinance 543
Section 11.03 paragraph (P) sub-section (1) calls for a 20'
interior side yard setback. Also in our file is a letter from
the Fire Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal;
however, this approval is contingent upon the installation of
an approved water supply and fire hydrants on the site.
Tastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau
stating this petition does not provide the required off-street
parking as prescribed for in the Zoning Ordinance; therefore,
the Police Department does not recommend approval of the
petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your
reasons for making this request.
13635
Joe Sutschek: I am the Director of Development for Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. I
Nato, have been here a number of times in the last five years all in
an attempt to find a permanent solution to the leasing
problems that are associated with the Livonia Town Square. As
you know, our company purchased that a number of years ago
when it was a vacant Wickes Furniture Store. We redeveloped
it into a reasonably successful retail shopping center.
However, as the years have gone on, the orientation of the
existing building, which is to the west, has made it very,
very difficult to lease the southerly portion of the building
or rear portion of the building. That section of the building
does not have any exposure off Seven Mile Road. Its exposure
is towards the west. We have tried virtually everything in
our power to find a permanent solution to this asset. We have
been before you with a proposal for an Office Max store to occupy
most of the rear of the building. We couldn't make that work. We
were before you with a PharMore Drug Store. I think enough said
about that the better. We got caught up like about 150 other
developers across the country did with the shenanigans that were
going on in that corporate headquarters. That deal obviously fell
through. If you remember, construction actually started on that
project. We did interior demolition and the remodeling of the
PharMore Store actually began to take place. Obviously it was
never completed. About a year ago we were before with with a plan
for a Best Buy store at the rear of the building, and we could not
make that materialize.
The plan we submitted to you, through Mr. Nagy's office, would
totally demolish this building and replace it with a brand new
Builders Square II store.
(Mr. Sutschek presented the landscaping plan.)
Mr. Sutschek: I think the critical factor of this proposal, again, is to
completely remove the existing building. We would stop trying
to force a retail development into a building that was
located, site planned and designed as a furniture warehouse.
We would replace it with a brand new Builders Square II, their
state-of-the-art store so to speak, which they are building
all over the country today. We would re-landscape the entire
site. We contacted the owner of the property to the west
where the restaurant is located. We originally wanted to
acquire that property. The owner indicated to us that he
really wasn't interested in selling the property but he was
willing to discuss with us the possibility of re-designing the
site so that both sites work as a totally integrated facility.
Both facilities, so to speak, could then share the common
parking area. That is what this plan represents. The plan
does a number of positive things.
13636
There is currently a separate second driveway along the east
side of the restaurant coming out to Seven Mile Road. That
driveway would be eliminated. The front of the restaurant
site would be landscaped in conjunction with the
re-landscaping of the front of the existing site. It would be
one consistent landscaping treatment for the entire front of
the development. The customers going into the restaurant
would now be able to enter and exit the facility by the
existing traffic light that is at our intersection directly
across from the Livonia Mall. All of the customers who have
to enter by making a left turn or leave by making a left turn
would now be able to make that maneuver at the existing
traffic light. We provide a total of 525 parking spaces on
site and we have totally integrated the facility. On the desk
you have a copy of the agreement that has been executed by
both us and Mr. Zawideh, the owner of this property,
documenting the fact that we have, in fact, arrived at that
agreement and if this project is approved, that those
easements, in fact, will take place and the site will be
developed as one site and operated as a totally integrated
facility.
I recognize that the plan that we have before you does not
meet all your local zoning ordinance requirements. This
property is totally surrounded by developed property. We did
everything we could to expand the site, which was to work out
an agreement with the adjacent property owner to join the two
parcels together. There is a multiple family development to
the rear. There is a shopping center to the east and, of
``'' course, there is Art Van, who is expanding, to the west.
There isn't any way for us to expand beyond the confines of
the existing site. We think we have done everything that we
can possibly do to make the site work. The site does work.
The site meets all of the practical parking requirements that
a shopping facility and restaurant of this nature would need.
I would like to document some of that for you if I could.
If you would consult the Third Edition of The Dimensions of
Parking, copies of two sections of that are in your packet.
This is the 1993 edition. It was prepared by the Urban Land
Institute, which is a nationally recognized association that
develops development standards for urban and suburban
developments throughout America, and also the NPA, which is
the National Parking Association. What this report shows is
as you track parking demands through the 1960s, 70s, 80s and
90s, when you analyze parking demand for the various land uses
all over the country, you find that for retail centers of this
type of magnitude, what you will find is that depending on the
time of day, the day of the week and the month of the year the
parking demand for a retail facility would vary between 0.3
and 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area.
The parking demand for restaurants would vary between 0.5 and
13637
20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area,
again depending on time of day, day of week and month of the
year. The peak retail demand for a shopping center for retail
'o. is typically in the afternoon on a Saturday during the month
of December. The peak restaurant demand is typically between
7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday or weekday. Their peak
months are June to July. If we apply the standards on the
tables of that study, I put together four hypothetical
examples, all these examples maximize the parking demand by
the land uses. For example, Example A, we are in December at
two o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday. You could expect
a parking demand of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
building area. It is 100% demand because it is in December.
That portion of the facility would demand 440 parking spaces.
The restaurant would be at a lower demand because it is in the
afternoon but it is December so there is a 90% factor in terms
of demand, so the restaurant would require another 75 parking
spaces for a total of 515 in this example.
Example B is still December at seven o'clock in the evening on
a weekday. Builders Square would be somewhat less than peak,
approximately 3.4 parking spaces per 1,000. It is 100% demand
because it is December and would require 374 parking spaces.
The restaurant would be at its peak requiring 20 parking
spaces per 1,000 for a total of 126 parking spaces. You would
need approximately 500 parking spaces for this example.
Example C is the summertime. This would be the peak season
for the restaurant. Again two o'clock in the afternoon on
r.. Saturday. It would be peak time for Builders Square but it is
only 75% factor because it is the month of June, not the peak
selling season, and approximately 330 parking spaces would be
required. The restaurant, since it would be June, would be at
its peak season so would have 100% factor and would require 84
parking spaces. You could anticipate demand at approximately
414 parking spaces at this time of the year with this
combination use of retail use and restaurant.
The last example, Example D, is still in June on a weekday at
seven o'clock. The Builders Square would be reduced to
approximately 3.4 parking spaces for 1,000, totalling
approximately 280 spaces to satisfy that demand. The
restaurant would be at its absolute peak and would require 140
spaces for a total of 420 spaces.
You could make all kinds of combinations through these charts
and, again, this is not from a traffic engineer that I hired.
This is from the Urban Land Institute, which is a nationally
recognized company that generates standards for urban and
suburban developments. I would imagine the City Planner uses
this service extensively.
13638
The other point of parking I would like to address tonight is
the size of the parking spaces. The report also traces the
evolution of the American car and the amount of land necessary
to accomodate the parking through the decade. For example, in
`r.. 1970 cars were obviously much larger. The typical parking
space was between 9 and 10 feet wide. The parking bays were
typically 60 to 62 feet from center to center. In 1990 the
parking space demand is only between 8 feet and 9 feet wide
and the parking bays are 60 feet from center to center.
The reduction in the recommended size of the parking spaces,
and again that is from Chapter 11 of the report you have,
generates from the following: In 1970 86% of all cars sold
were full-size cars. Only 14% were small cars. In 1990 only
48% of the cars sold were full-size cars. We all know that
today's full-size car is smaller than the full-size car of 20
years ago. 52% of all cars sold today are small cars. What
is happening is the size of our vehicles is getting smaller.
The amount of land that is necessary to devote to parking our
vehicles doesn't have to be what it once was.
The site plan we have prepared, in quick summary, has 525
parking spaces to serve both sites. The current retail
building has approximately 453 parking spaces on it. The
restaurant site has 128 parking spaces. Our plan would make
525 parking spaces available to both. The restaurant is a
primary evening restaurant. Its business starts about 6:00
p.m. Builders Square opens at seven o'clock in the morning
and it closes at ten o'clock at night. You have a very small
time of the day where you have overlapping of parking
`ft. facilities. The other parts of the day the entire parking lot
is available for one use or another use. Our parking spaces
are 9 feet wide but we are sticking with a 64 foot wide
parking base. All of these standards exceed the
recommendations which are covered in that report.
The other thing I would like to show you briefly what the
building would look like.
(Mr. Sutschek presented the elevation plans.)
Mr. Sutschek: I summary, all I can say is this is our last chance to do
something with this asset. We have searched the country high
and low. We have talked to almost every retailer that we know
that we do business with. There are no other options for us
at this point other than to make this deal with Builders
Square. Again, I recognize the plan doesn't meet all of the
strict letters of the ordinance. The plan does work. It will
function. Builders Square knows it will function. They have
committed to the project. Mr. Zawideh knows it will function
otherwise he wouldn't have signed the agreement that we have
combining the properties into one piece. I think it is an
opportunity for the assets to be restored, not only for our
Now
13639
benefit but for the benefit of the City as well. We have done
what we could. We initially tried to acquire additional
property. We did the next best thing and negotiated a joint
reciprocal access and parking easement to combine the assets
Ni.. together. I don't think there is anything else I can say
other than we really need your help to get this done because
quite frankly we don't know if there is another day coming for
our company with this piece of property.
Mr. Morrow: Sir, a couple of questions. As a matter of scale. What is
the size of the building that exists there now?
Mr. Sutschek: The building up there now is approximately 97,000 square feet.
Mr. Morrow: You are looking at roughly 110,000 plus the 33,000 to 34,000
square feet for the garden shop.
Mr. Sutschek: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: When you did your analysis showing this 110,000 square feet,
are you trying to say that the 33,000 to 34,000 square feet
will not cause an impact as far as additional parking is
concerned?
Mr. Sutschek: Yes, the standards developed in that report are all based on
enclosed interior buildings.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to go to the staff. Mr. Nagy, does our ordinance
place a parking requirement on the outside sales or planting
sales?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we do.
Mr. Morrow: So we would be in conflict with this association's thinking?
Mr. Nagy: We believe the garden center and a retail within a building
both generate traffic to and from the site.
Mr. Morrow: In effect, we look at it as a total site whether it is inside
the building or outside the building.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Sir, I read through your letter and your report here on
vehicles. To be honest with you some of it is not really
making sense to me. First, I have been in the restaurant
business in this area for over ten years myself and I have
represented many clients. We typically see December as the
best month of the year not June and July. At the opposite end
we have had the Builders Square people tell us here that their
best months of the year are not December because this is not
general retail, their best months are April and May. I don't
13640
know how it is going to conflict. Normally I don't see a big
problem between your traffic and Jamie's traffic. Jamie's is
going to be later evening, but I feel real conflict coming
from about seven o'clock to about ten o'clock. Builders
*Amy Square is usually open until ten o'clock. Jamie's has a real
problem with parking as it is. They are going across the
street to the mall. They are going to the stores next door
for parking. I know that because I used to own a security
guard company 12 years ago and did the security for the
parking lot. I think you might find it a problem in the late
evening but I don't know what kind of traffic you would get
fr.m six o'clock until nine or ten o'clock on a Friday or
Saturday night. The other thing, the study doesn't really
adapt well to what you are telling us here for Builders
Square. One of the things I was reading about in the business
section, somewhere around 52% or so of all vehicles being sold
projected over the next year are utility vehicles, vans,
trucks, and four-wheel drive type utility vehicles. To me
that means we are getting a much larger emphasis on larger
cars, and the type of vehicle that is going to be drawn to a
place like this is generally going to be a lot of trucks. A
lot of working people are going to be bringing their trucks.
When I go to my Builders Square it is loaded with trucks and
vans. The other thing, people are going to be buying toilets
or buying sinks and buying lumber. They are buying things for
their homes, for their decks, large items that are bulky and
hard to get around and they are trying to get them in their
car. I have a real problem with the parking. I want to help
you out. I would like to see it work out. How do you feel
'411. about these things I am saying?
Mr. Sutschek: You are correct in that there would be more trucks, typically
pick-up trucks, coming to Builders Square than to a shopping
center. Again, the width of the parking spaces that we are
providing is 9 feet wide, which is very typical of most
communities today. Remember the study suggested we could go
as law as 8. We are going 9. We are also staying with the 64
foot wide parking bay from center to center, which is 4 foot
more than necessary today. The loading, so to speak, of those
large type items typically takes place along the front of
Builders Square. There are no curbs between the front drive
and the sidewalk. It is flush. This is where you would load
that type of material. The smaller items you would buy such
as hammers, saws, power tools, etc. you would load in the lot,
but most of the loading of your vehicle for larger type of
products would take place in front of the building, which is
the way they design their buildings.
Mr. McCann: I tend to get one of the big push carts that you have and
carry the stuff out. I still feel you are going to have
people out there with the big carts. Not to be argumentative,
my point is if you had to go to 10 feet on your parking
spaces, is the site going to accomodate enough parking to suit
Builders Square? Are you telling me it is 9 feet or nothing?
13641
Mr. Sutschek: I can't speak for Builders Square as far as the 10 feet but I
can say that Builders Square has seen this plan. They have
agreed with this plan. They have told us that it meets their
parking needs. It meets their loading demands. It meets
their standards for a Builders Square store. They do not have
a problem with the operation of the parking/loading facility
on that plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: The gentleman states that they have done everything to
accommodate this site except scale it back. In addition to the
parking facility, this site is in violation in several areas
that I can see. We have a monument sign that doesn't fit the
required setback. We only have 50% of the landscaping
requirement. We have a side yard setback deficiency. There
are a lot of things. The signs are 174 square feet over what
is allowed. There are a lot of things for which they will have
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I feel we are going to
overburden that area with traffic. If you could scale that
down. Why can't you make it smaller?
Mr. Sutschek: The other alternatives that we appeared before you and showed
you basically stayed within the confines of the existing
building. We could not enlarge the building and we stayed
with the basic building. All of those alternatives, for one
reason or another, did not work. We cannot scale the Builders
Square down. That is their modern day store. Unless they
have 110,000 square feet of floor space, they cannot display,
market, sell the product they need to in order to compete in
today's retail industry. If there was another alternative
available to us, we would be presenting that to you. There
are no other alternatives. I don't know haw else to say that.
This is the last hurrah so to speak for our company.
Everything you say is correct. This plan does not meet a lot
of your zoning regulations but it does work. It will take an
asset, which is empty, and which quite frankly will be
neglected, and turn it into an asset both for us and for the
City. It combines another site to the west, which quite
frankly I don't think would met a lot of your standards today
either. I guess what I am saying is this is the best we can
do under the circumstances. We are pleading for your
understanding, your practicality to allow us to continue with
this piece of property.
Mr. Piercecchi: You make a case over the width of the parking sizes, you say 8
or 9 feet. I think enough of our cars are dinged up in
parking lots with a 10 foot space, and we do have an ordinance
that says 10 foot.
Mrs. Blomberg: I too have a problem with the size of the place. Also I
really am adamant about keeping the size of the parking
spaces in Livonia at 10 feet because I really think Livonia,
maybe it is is unique because all of my friends drive big
cars. I drive a big car and when I get into a little spot it
rr..
13642
doesn't work. I had my car dinged with doors bashing into it.
I find small parking spots simply don't work. Maybe Livonia
is unique in that we have bigger cars, but the whole project
to me is really overbuilt on that particular size lot. There
'iw have been other type buildings that have come before us that
have also been too large for the lots, and McDonald's tried to
go kitty-corner. That would have been great on that lot. I
am not saying McDonald's should go in there but they were
trying to build on a very small lot. This is just being
overbuilt and I really feel we should stick to the ordinance
with the parking sizes.
Mr. Alanskas: I really feel you have tried in the last four to five years to
put something in there. When you had Best Buy I thought that
was going to work. It is a shame it didn't work. We can't go
by the study you have. You have to go by our ordinance. It
says at that site you should have 867 parking spots, which
means you are 435 deficient by our ordinance. We can't go by
the fact that you brought in a study saying we have smaller
cars and we don't need as much parking. It is a problem. You
don't have enough landscaping. I would think the biggest
percentage of Builders Square customers are small businesses
with small trucks. I have been to your stores and these
trucks are in a hurry to get out of there with all of that
material, and at Middlebelt and Seven Mile I think we would
have a disastrous problem with the traffic. I know you have
tried to put certain things in there but this particular thing
is way too big in that small area. I think we will have big
problems with traffic and safety. I feel sorry that you can't
'r.w put what you want in there but I think this is the wrong
project.
Mr. rapine: I have a couple of questions. You are saying the restaurant
busy season is June and July. Is that correct?
Mr. Sutschek: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The garden shop, at least most garden shops I have seen, are
busiest in April, May and June when they are selling flowers
and landscaping material, etc. I think that would be more of
a conflict with the restaurant during those months of the year
especially when you have your flats of flowers. There is a
tremendous amount of traffic at that time at Home Quarters,
etc. You name it, everyone is selling flowers. One of the
big problems I have is even if you had the parking, you abut
to the south some residential property. There are some
apartments back there. That is back where your lumber staging
area is. The Chairman and I were out and checked Home
Quarters and a couple of other places and the stacking of this
lumber, etc. at these other locations, and I assume Builders
Square will be the same way, is tremendously high. The people
in the apartments will be able to see all that lumber from
13643
their windows. I don't think that is a good idea. The other
problem you are going to have is the trucks are going to have
to go behind the building to unload that lumber. I don't know
what time of the day they come in with lumber to load and
`r' unload. I think there is not anybody on this board that is
not sympathetic to you. We would like to see that corner,
believe me we would love to see that whole thing torn down and
something brand new but we also have to be realistic. We have
to get something in there that will work with the amount of
land you have to work with. Unfortunately, this project, in
my opinion, is a little too large. Even if you bought out
Jamie's, that wouldn't help the situation. It would help your
parking somewhat. I might be able to bend, which I don't like
to do, on parking, but the deficiency you are asking for
is a tremendous amount. If you were saying 10% to 15% that
might be reasonable. Unfortunately, I think what you want to
put here would be an asset. Builders Square would build a
nice building. They are willing to work with the City to put
up a building that we would all be proud of. I think this
parcel is just a little too small. I could not support it.
If the building was smaller, I might probably go along with
it. I think this site is just too small for that type of
building.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, did I understand you to say that all Builders Square II
stores are configured exactly like this one?
Mr. Sutschek: With one small exception. The typical Builders Square II
store is 110,700 square feet. The typical garden shop is a
'r• little bit larger than this one. The typical garden shop
would wrap around the back of the building so it would be
another five or six thousand square feet of garden shop at
that location. That was eliminated from the prototype because
of the size of the building. Basically this is the prototype
building with the garden shop on the side wrapping a little
bit around to the back. I would like to point out, in
response to Mr. TaPine's question, if you look at the plan of
the current building, and this is the plan for Best Buy, which
was approved, you will notice that the loading dock is at the
rear of the building. The loading dock is on the side
furthest away. If you are concerned about what the rear of
the building will look like, you could certainly approve the
site plan with the condition that none of that take place back
there. I happened to drive by Home Quarters at four o'clock
this afternoon and there were 174 cars at Home Quarters at
four o'clock this afternoon, and a number of those, I am sure,
were construction workers that are building the China Coast
restaurant on the corner.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you happen to recall approximately the size of
the parcel in Victor Corporate Park that there was a Builders
Square II store proposed for?
13644
Mr. Nagy: Fifteen acres.
Mr. Engebretson: Approximately double this size. I think that illustrates very
well the point Mr. rapine was making, and others, that it
appears that while this may be a suitable use, and we are all
very anxious to see that particular building upgraded, it just
appears, as Mr. Tent used to say, you are trying to put five
pounds of coffee in a three pound can. Our ordinance, that
has been referred to several times, may indeed be unrealistic
when it comes to so-called big box retail users, and I am
prepared to concede that it may well be and that the Zoning
Board of Appeals has the authority to grant variances where it
is appropriate to do so, but when there are 400 to 500 spaces
short, that is really stretching beyond what is reasonable in
my opinion. Your report, in my opinion, loses all credibility
when it makes the point that 8 and 9 foot parking bays are
suitable in 1990 because the size of cars are smaller. My car
is not smaller. I would never, ever shop at any retail store
that had 8 foot wide parking bays and I wouldn't think the
average customer would feel that that was a very friendly
environment, particularly considering the kinds of materials
sold at this type of store. I also was at Home Quarters
today. I was there as a customer and I was loading some
materials in my car that were a little tricky. Basically I
was parked where it wasn't a problem because I stay as far
away from people as I can, but with the doors opening and
material being loaded and unloaded, and with the size of cars,
etc. an 8 foot parking bay is absolutely out of the question.
I know you are not proposing that here but I think 9 foot is
.,.. also too small.
Mr. Sutschek: These are not my standards. These standards come from the
Urban Land Institute.
Mr. Engebretson: They are not our standards either. We have our standards and
they are defined in Ordinance #543 and you are keenly aware of
what they are. Before I go to the audience to see if there is
anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal,I would
like to introduce one resident's point of view who took the
time to write a letter, Mr. Cicchelli on Fremont, asking us to
present his comments at our public hearing. "As a neighboring
resident to the proposed property, I am delighted to see the
City Planning Commission and Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. working
together to replace the existing vacant building and construct
a new Builders Square store. The property has remained vacant
with the closing of the Marshalls department store (roughly
three years ago) and in real need of revitalization. I hope
the City Planning Commission, City Council, and
Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. support, approve and construct the
proposed store." Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
13645
Robert Detter, 29764 Clarita: That is just behind Jamie's. I am opposed to the
petition mainly for the hours of seven to ten. That is not
giving the people much rest in that area. That is my reason
for objection.
Dave Petrie, 18916 Melvin: This is in the Meadow Glen Estates Condominium
Estates right behind that property. I am here on behalf
of those residents. Based on the fact that our common area
backs up to that lot, we would like to see something go in
there. Right now we have a nice grass area out in back and we
have to look on this vacant store where you can still see the
Marshal sign. Our only issues with it were that we would like
to see some sort of sound barrier put up between the building
and our site. This would allow us a little more quiet. It
would also give us a little more privacy from the people that
would be at that store. We would also be concerned about the
lighting of the parking lot. The lights that are in there now
tend to shine in a lot of the windows in our subdivision and
we would like to see shoe box type lighting or something like
that that would point down more than out.
Mr. Engehretson: Sir, do you speak on behalf of the association there?
Mr. Petrie: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you an officer?
Mr. Petrie: Not yet. The builder is still the official association. I am
here on behalf of the residents.
lour
Jeanne Hildebrandt, 29514 Seven Mile Road: I am the General Manager of Livonia
Mall and I am here representing the developer and myself as
General Manager. We certainly back this project. The
building across the street has had tremendous difficulty with
tenants. The way the building is laid out, it is very
difficult to secure tenants and keep them in there in the
retail industry today. The big box users, ladies and
gentlemen, are bypassing Livonia, a lot of them. We have had
an empty building on the Livonia Mall property for about a
year and a half. Children's Palace went Chapter 11
nationwide. Probably over 30 big box users have turned down
that location, thereby passing Livonia. I realize we have
Home Quarters, Home Depot here but I have had a lot of big box
users turn down Livonia. That building is still sitting
vacant on our property. I have it temporarily leased for the
Christmas season to a toy store. They won't even take it as a
permanent store. Securing the big box users to come into this
area has been a very difficult situation. To put a large box
user across Seven Mile would benefit that whole corner. We
have an empty post office sitting on Middlebelt, which doesn't
look very good at this point, and also the building across the
street on Seven Mile Road. I want to advise the Planning
Nem.
13646
Commission that the Livonia Mall does back this project and
the developers of the Livonia Mall.
Mr. Engebretson: Why are these big box users not interested in that space at the
v... Livonia Mall?
Ms. Hildebrandt: Number one, the demographics. Number two, the restrictions
that this City has, such as #1 parking. Nationwide, the
information Mr. Sutschek gave you is very accurate. The Urban
Land Institute has done tremendous research with the large
developers across the country and they find that is a fact
that the 9 foot parking spaces are sufficient. When you
purchase land at the cost it is today, you try to utilize
every inch and the 9 foot parking space is what they are going
to nationwide. It becomes a very expensive operation when you
develop property today.
Sam Zawideh: I am next door. I would say it would help my property in
developing the parking lot and I will pledge to you I will
spend some of my money to bring the building to better shape
than it is right now. It is very difficult for somebody to
come in and build next door.
Mr. Engebretson: So you will remodel Jamie's if this construction occurs?
Mr. Zawideh: Yes sir I will. The area will be alive. Now it is dead.
Mr. Engebretson: We will allow the petitioner to have the last word.
Mr. Sutschek: It sounds like I am outnumbered, but just for the record I
think you have heard Mr. Zawideh, who owns the real estate
next door, express his agreement and how he views this
proposal would benefit his property. You have heard the
Manager of the Livonia Mall across the street talk about her
experiences with getting big box users located in Livonia.
You even had a representative of residents of Livonia who say
they are tired of looking at this ugly, ugly building. It
will remain an ugly building just the way it is or worse if we
can't put this package together.
Mr. Engebretson: What do you mean worse? Define that sir. That sounds like a
threat.
Mr. Sutschek: I am just trying to get all the facts on the table. The fact
of the matter is we will no longer own this asset within a few
months if we can't make something work. We will no longer be
able to carry this asset without any income coming in at all.
I am just trying to get all the facts on the table.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked you that was not to challenge you but you
had made several comments earlier along the same lines that
this is the last hurrah, last chance and last hope, and it is
13647
likely to deteriorate. I just wanted to know what you meant
by that.
Mr. Morrow: Are you under any type of a time constraint with Builders
`., Square. It sounds like even if it were to go through the
stages it would be beyond what you are prepared to hold onto
the property for.
Mr. Sutschek: We have until December to make a very significant business
decision as it pertains to this asset. We are prepared to
continue owning this shopping center and to re-invest into
this shopping center, but we have to know by December if the
community is going to agree with this project or not. I
recognize it does not meet a lot of your zoning ordinance
regulations. I am not here trying to tell you that it does.
It does not. It would be very practical and prudent to say
people we have a chance to fix this. We know from our
experience, from Builders Square experience, from Mr.
Zawikeh's experience, that while it doesn't meet a lot of your
regulations, this development will work and function as a
quality retail development.
Mr. Morrow: Does December coincide with the offer Builders Square has
made? In other words, they will keep the offer on the table
to take this site. In other words, is there any time
constraint that Builders Square has placed on you?
Mr. Sutschek: No.
`„ Mr. Piercecchi: We have heard a lot of testimony here tonight and a lot of
reasons for and against but I think based on the testimony and
our ordinances, which to me are paramount, we can fluctuate
but in this case there are too many places where they are not
in compliance with our ordinance, I believe we have no
alternative but to deny this petition and I will make that
motion to deny.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. rapine and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-158-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 20, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-9-2-28 by Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. requesting waiver use approval
to construct a Builders Square store on property located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Melvin Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-2-28
be denied for the following reasons:
`,
13648
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver
use standards as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the special waiver
use standards set forth in Section 11.03(p)(2) and 11.03(p)(1)
with respect to off-street parking and building setback
requirements as well as the parking space size standards and
requirements for handicap parking as set forth in Section
18.37(o) of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) That the subject site does not have the capacity to
accommodate the proposed use.
4) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible
with the adjoining uses of the area.
5) That the location and size of the proposed use, its nature and
intensity, the site layout and its relation to streets and
adjacent uses will be such that traffic to and from the site
will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly
conflict with the normal traffic of 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. Engebretson: I would like to make a comment. I regret that we haven't
considered tabling this item to try to find a solution that
would accommodate Builders Square's needs as well as take into
consideration the ordinance and applying some reason to
possibly deviate, where it is reasonable to do so. For that
reason I am going to not support the denying motion. I
support the proposal to deny from the standpoint as presented
this site does not have the capacity to support the proposal
for all the reasons Mr. Piercecchi gave, but I was hopeful
that there would be some additional time taken to try to find
some accommodation and I would actually hope that someone
would make a substitute motion.
Mr. Morrow: I think Mr. rapine what you just said and every member of this
Commission, next to the petitioner and Builders Square and the
City, would like to see that site developed. For that reason
I will offer a tabling resolution.
Mr. McCann: I thought about a tabling motion myself. The problem I have
with this deficiency in the parking, I might even live with it
if it were 10 foot spaces. The only way they can make this,
this building has to be 110,000 square feet. I think he is
right in what he says. The only solution that I can see for
this is for him to be able to purchase the property of Jamies,
Inc. into one site. That he said he can't do. I don't think
13649
we would be able to accomplish anything because it is severely
short on parking now. As long as Jamie's is not incorporated
into it, which he says he cannot do, it is an impossibility.
We will be dragging him out and dragging this issue.
\.. Therefore, I am against the tabling motion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I asked the question whether he could scale this site down and
the answer was no so I don't know what we would accomplish.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to a tabling motion but I have to agree
with Mr. Piercecchi and Mr. McCann. We have heard Builders
Square three times now for different locations. Every time
they come in the most important point they make is the stores
have to be 110,000 square feet because of the competition.
There is no way they can accomplish this at that location with
the size of the property. I am willing to go along with a
tabling motion if I thought that Builders Square would come in
and say they would take a 50,000 square foot building or a
75,000 square foot building but I don't think that is going to
happen. If the petitioner tells me he thinks Builders Square
will allow the building to stay at an 85,000 square foot
building, I am willing to put my vote for a tabling motion
because I want the site cleaned up, but I don't think that is
going to happen.
Mr. Sutschek: I would like to say that we would request you either approve
or deny this tonight and not table it. I can't tell you that
there is a compromise in the works here because there isn't.
Builders Square's requirements are what they are and there
isn't any way we can modify this proposal to come even close
to where you good people are trying to go. I would appreciate
either a rejection or approval tonight.
Mr. Morrow: That was one of the reasons I asked the petitioner if he was
under any real time constraint but now he comes forth and says
he wants to keep the petition moving. On that basis I will
withdraw my tabling motion.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #181-94,
to hold a public hearing on the question of whether property
described as being Tax Item No. 46 005 99 0040 000, located on the
west side of Melvin between Norfolk and Bretton in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 2, as well as other property in the immediate
surrounding area, should be rezoned from R-5 to a more appropriate
residential zoning classification.
Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to set a public /Paring.
13650
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-159-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Nu. Resolution #181-94, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property described as being Tax
Item No. 46 005 99 0040 000, located on the west side of Melvin
between Norfolk and Bretton in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, from
R-5 to RUF.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a
report and recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #365-94,
to hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain
property located on the north side of Six Mile Road west of Inkster
Road should be rezoned from P to a more appropriate zoning
classification, such as C-2.
Mr. Engebretson: We also need a motion here to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-160-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #365-94, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property located on the north
side of Six Mile Road west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 12 from P to C-2.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a
report and recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 689th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
August 30, 1994.
13651
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tapine, seconded by Mr. McCann, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-161-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 690th Regular Meeting & Public
14m. Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 30, 1994
are hereby approved.
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
94-9-8-17 by Neumann/Smith & Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to expand the existing bank and parking
lot on property located at 36700 Five Mile Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miller: This is a bank that is located on the north side of Five Mile
west of Levan Road. This is a Comerica Bank and they are
proposing to add three additions to the existing building.
One addition will be located on the front of the building.
This will be to enlarge the interior teller windows. The
other addition will be on the east side of the existing
building. This would be for bank employee work stations. The
third addition will be located to the rear of the building and
it will be a storage area and lunch room for employees. They
are also proposing to combine 100 feet of the vacant lot to
the east to incorporate more parking in the layout of the
whole bank's site plan. This area will be utilized mostly for
Nu, parking and will add 56 spaces to the bank's parking. With
the incorporating of this 56 spaces the bank is able to
reconfigure the parking spaces to the front of the building
and put in two ATM machines and a canopy over that. The
canopy over the ATM would be kind of a step formation as the
bank is a little bit of a step formation. Parking for the
bank, they will need 37 spaces. The whole site plans shows 75
so they are over the parking spaces required. Landscaping,
required is 15%, they have 35%. They meet everything by the
ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Ken Neumann of Neumann, Smith Associates: We are here on behalf of Comerica
Bank. Mr. Bill Warner is here also from the bank if there are
any questions relating to banking. A very nice presentation
has been made by the Planning staff. I think we are here to
answer any questions. We comply with all the ordinance
regulations and respectfully ask for your approval.
Mr. Tapine: John, the lot to the east where they purchased 100 feet, how
much property is left there?
Mr. Nagy: 200' x 400' .
'taw
13652
Mr. LaPine: So there is plenty of land for another building?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
.401, Mr. LaPine: The landscaping on the Past, there is a line of trees. Is
that going to be taken out and all new landscaping installed?
Cathy Bock: I am also with Neumann/Smith Architects. The existing
landscaping along the existing Past property line of the site
would be removed so we could install four new landscaped
islands that would separate the existing site from the 56
space parking area.
Mr. rapine: Will all the new landscaping be irrigated by underground
sprinklers?
Ms. Bock: Yes.
Mr. rapine: The new area for the ATM machines, is there any security
cameras?
Bill Warner: I am with Comerica and I am located in Auburn Hills at the
Operation Center. Actually all of our machines have camera
capabilities. We don't advertise that there are cameras in
there. Some do, some don't. At this particular location I
don't think that is determined yet.
Mr. LaPine: There will be two machines?
Nur Mr. Warner: There will be two drive-up machines.
Mr. LaPine: These are open 24 hours a day. Is that correct?
Mr. Warner: Yes these are open 24 hours a day.
Mr. LaPine: Haw is this going to be lit? Is there going to be lighting
under this canopy?
Mr. Warner: There will be lighting underneath the canopy. The site plan
shows parking lot lighting which in part are some existing
light poles and some additional light poles. Part of our
security requirements are certain light levels have to be at
the machines and certain light levels away from the machine.
That is all a matter of keeping the area lit after hours for
passers-by to be able to see anything going on.
Mr. LaPine: The two additions that you are going to add on to the bank,
that will be constructed of the same material?
Mr. Warner: Yes. What they have done, they have designed around the
existing brick material and actually they are looking at brick
combinations. I don't believe they have fully decided
13653
yet, and have shown me some compatible combinations of brick.
They will be compatible and they are duplicating some of the
metal siding as well as brick material. As a matter of fact,
because of the informal session we had last week and you had
`r.► all shown concern with that area, I had them relook at that
canopy area and treat it more differently than we had shown
you last week. You will find another design in front of you
that is a more architectural approach to that canopy as
opposed to the simple approach that we first showed you.
Mr. TaPine: The additional land you bought to the east, you will have to
extend the masonry wall. It will be the same material?
Mr. Warner: Yes it will
Mr. TaPine: The last question. This bank that you are closing, do you own
that bank?
Mr. Warner: We are leasing that space.
Mr. LaPine: What is going to happen? Are we going to have a vacant
building there?
Mr. Warner: There is a prospective tenant waiting for us to get out. It
is a matter of how long it takes us to have this site in
operation before we can vacate the other one because we have
to continue to service those customers.
Mr. Alanskas: The site looks very nice but on your rendering here what is
the actual size of the canopy? It looks very, very large.
Ms. Bock: The drawings indicate it will be roughly four feet. It will
depend on the structure needed to support the canopy itself.
It is roughly 10 feet from the driving surface to the other
side of the canopy and approximately 3 1/2 to 4 feet tall.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the length?
Ms. Bock: It measures 9 feet from the center line to the outside edge so
across one of those brick faces it will be 18 feet across.
The total for the two canopies would be 36 feet.
Mr. Mccann: We talked last week about moving this to the side of the
building. I assume you felt the best place for traffic flow
was up in front?
Mr. Warner: We did discuss that. As I was trying to show you last week,
by separating the drive to patterns on the property, we
decreased the amount of confusion amongst the customers. As
you asked whether or not the drive-to islands could be located
somewhere else, keep in mind approaching any drive-to station
13654
you are always putting the driver on the side that approaches
that station so you are setting up the counter-clockwise flow
of traffic around that piece. For example if these things
were put back up in here, counter-clockwise is going to be in
`r•► front of the entrance to the building. TO move them into
here, it is going to interfere with pedestrian traffic in and
out of the building. If I put it back here I end up being too
far back from the security aspect.
Mr. McCann: One of the things we talked about was the possibility of not
going with a canopy. One of the problems I had, we are going
to have this large 4'x18'36' structure very close to the road
and visually I had a problem with that. What about just
having the ATM machines there by themselves?
Mr. Warner: In inclement weather it would certainly be a hindrance to the
customers use plus the fact that we try to keep water out of
the equipment. One option I am sure we could go to would
probably be more pleasing to the City's taste. I could
utilize the same kind of pods we did at Laurel Park. Those
pods are pre-manufactured. They are not a large structure
like you are talking about but they are freestanding pods.
When we talked last week I mentioned to you that from a
security aspect I would consider that secondary because with
one pod if you drive around it, you get to see all sides for
anyone lurking there before you approach the machine. With
two pods, there are more hidden corners where someone could be
lurking back there. My first choice would be to put the
canopy up to cover the area where you could see the whole area
as you drove up to it. That would be another way to handle
it if that was the alternative you wanted.
Mr. Neumann: May I just offer a comment. One of the things in the package
of drawings we just submitted, we have indicated an adjustment
to the original drawing which shows the metal facing along the
sides of the canopy in lieu of brick. We did that because
brick is usually the type of material that starts on the
ground. It is a heavy material. We already have it in all
the places which are lifted high up above the building. All
those components of the existing building are, in fact, metal.
Right now we have just done preliminary engineering on this
project. In fact, we will be still moving ahead to develop
the construction documents. Because we have developed and
designed it in such a way that the pole is central to each of
those squared canopy elements, we can thin down the horizontal
and vertical dimensions of those roofs as they get further and
further away from the central pole and diminish the vertical
heights of the outside surface of the canopy to make it
somewhat smaller. We would be glad to go to work to make that
thinner to diminish the appearance of the canopy and still
give the protection to the equipment and to the customers at
r the same time.
13655
Mrs. Blomberg: I am assuming that with all this rebuilding that the parking
lot is going to be torn up so the old parking lot will be an
all new parking lot. Am I assuming correctly?
`" Mr. Warner: Within the budget. The way we have it now, I have certain
topping that will occur on the existing parking lot and, of
course, all the additional parking will be new pavement. I
was leaving the budget for the redo of the existing parking
lot in the maintenance budget which I am hoping will be
approved in the 1995 maintenance where we would retop that.
At this point the project alone is funded only for new
pavement on the new area and where we would be adding new
underground structures or what have you that would require
pavement and patching of the existing area.
Mrs. Blomberg: When I was there I noticed it was in need of repair.
Mr. Warner: That is why we budgeted for maintenance of topping in that
area but every year we get some of those and some of those we
don't get.
Mrs. Blomberg: I really like the idea of the cameras. I know you said it is
not really in the planning but using ATMs quite often, it
would make me feel quite safe to think there was a camera
watching.
Mr. Warner: Actually there is a lot of discussion around that. Some areas
of the country require cameras and there is the false sense of
security that is given by knowing the camera is there. There
is a great deal of controversy over that amongst the banking
institutions now because if you tell someone they are secure
because there is a camera in there and by the time something
happens the alarm goes in and the police get there 15 minutes
later and the fellow is gone, you are liable for advertising a
secure situation that isn't really secure. All it really is
is a picture. Obviously they can come up to that with a spray
can and all that kind of stuff. It is an area of controversy
and I know there are many people that would feel comfort in
that but it is something we are hesitant to advertise because
of the liability and what could happen.
Mrs. Blomberg: I am quite careful but knowing the camera is there helps.
Mr. Warner: I put them in all the time but I go in the daylight myself. I
don't know if you happen to be a Comerica customer but if you
ever turn your receipt over there are tips for safe operation
of ATMs on the back.
Mrs. Blomberg: I have short arms. When I go through the drive-thru ATMs I
have a hard time reaching.
Mr. Warner: The problem with any piece of equipment like that, whether it
is a drive-to window or anything like that, most people are
13656
right handed and yet we drive in this country on the left side
of the car and if you try to reach your right arm across
there, you don't reach very far. I can tell you this, we
install these ATMs with the manufacturer's recommendation of a
`r► ten inch curb in front of it and we try to put bumper posts in
front of that so that the customer can get their wheels up to
within ten inches of it but the bumper posts protect the
vehicle. It is a matter of you take away the physical barrier
but you protect yourself a little bit and ten inches is what
the manufacturer recommends for a curb. Sometimes people are
a lot further out than those ten inches.
Mr. Piercecchi: My question was also concerning the canopy. The petitioner
indicated they were going to try to scale down the height of
that and I think that is a move in the right direction.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't want to be objective, I think it is a very nice site
but question number two is you are not going to have any
letters like Comerica on this canopy?
Mr. Warner: I would like to get this project going so I knew this would be
an issue. I may come in later in order to ask for that but I
want to get this approved in a matter that we can do it and if
indeed we face you on that matter, we will talk about it then.
Mr. Alanskas: The way it is right now it is very clean looking.
Mr. Warner: If signage were the issue, just like when we talked about
Laurel Park last year, the issue would be to say Comerica Card
'toy somewhere on it. It would not be that large of a logo but I
figured it would be better to get this project rolling than to
put issues here to slow it down.
Mr. Piercecchi: When Mr. Morrow and I looked at this site he brought up a very
interesting point. Why 75 spaces instead of the minimum and
bank them with a greenbelt?
Mr. Warner: Actually there was enough green space on the site and as we
were buying the property I simply figured we may as well
develop it and use it. What I was trying to do was increase
the parking in the area of the entrance as dramatically as I
could. In the closing of the other bank at Five Mile and
Newburgh, we will be transferring all of those accounts over
to here. That is the same size branch as this is. This is
not doubling in square footage but it is going to double in
customer service so I was trying to utilize the property that
we were purchasing and to tell you the truth we are purchasing
more property than we need but that is so that if in the
future we ever needed to make a regional center, I have a
parcel that I could always develop even greater than it is
today. Rather than to leave it all unused, I figured it would
be best if we got parking closer to the door and utilized more
13657
of that property. The other aspect is that while parking is
adequate at the code level and it is adequate 90% of the time,
Friday afternoons are always a zoo at all the banks so if you
have the additional parking there are the peak times when it
4.► would be appreciated and used even if all the rest of the time
it isn't. As banking goes on there are days when social
security checks come in or paychecks come in. Fridays are
traditionally paydays and on those days banks get busier and
the drive-thrus stack up and the parking fills up. At this
point I am doubling the capacity of this branch so I just
figured while we were buying additional property for the
future, we might as well utilize it for parking at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a pleasure having someone come in and offer double the
parking and more than double the landscaping. Haw do you not
approve a program like that?
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-162-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-17 by Neumann/Smith &
Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
expand the existing bank and parking lot on property located at
36700 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated Sept. 20, 1994,
Now as revised, by Neumann/Smith & Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet LP 1.0 dated Sept.
20, 1994, as revised, by Neumann/Smith & Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to; and that the landscape
materials and underground irrigation system shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 3 dated Sept. 6,
1994 by Neumann/Smith & Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
4) That the size of the canopy shall be scaled dawn as per
drawings to be submitted by Neumann/Smith & Associates.
5) That the parking bays shall be double striped.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the notion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-8-18 by Tech Express Corp. requesting approval of all plans
13658
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an addition to the gas station located
at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
`.. Mr. Miller: This is a Sunoco gas station that is located on the south side
of Seven Mile and the west side of Middlebelt. They are
proposing to add a 384 square foot addition to the existing
gas station. This will help expand the mini mart operation
that is present in that building at this time. The new
addition will match the existing building and building
materials. Because it is a non-conforming building, they had
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance for
front and side yard setbacks. They have received a variance
so it is a conforming building in that aspect. The parking,
they need five spaces and on the site plan they show five
spaces. Landscaping, they are required to have 15% and they
only have 4% so they are deficient in landscaping. Also, the
Zoning Board required them to crosshatch this area in the rear
of the gas station and to post a sign that reads "No Parking"
to allow a better flow in the parking area so people could get
to their parking spaces.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here.
John Damrath, 16801 Newburgh Road: I want to briefly say that Sunoco is trying
to improve this site and expand the store to give it more
sales area so it is not too claustrophobic when people walk in
there. It is very awkward so they are trying to open it up
and give it a better appeal and also offer more items for
`.. sale. On the landscaping, we are proposing to improve all the
landscaping with what we have to work with. We request your
approval tonight.
Mr. LaPine: The island of pumps directly behind the building on the west,
that island and pumps are going. Is that correct?
Mr. Damrath: That is correct.
Mr. rapine: I guess I am just curious. Normally oil companies want to
pump gasoline. You are eliminating two pumps, which leaves
you only four pumps in front of the building. That isn't
normally how gas companies operate. Is this more a
convenience store or party store than a gasoline station
pumping gas?
Mr. Damrath: It is a definite trade off. The sales are going to increase
in the store obviously but what they are finding is you can
pump 100,000 gallons a month out of one dispenser.
Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with the addition of the square footage you
put in there but because you are so deficient in landscaping,
you might take a bunch of flower boxes and attach to the
13659
building up higher so it is off the ground and you would have
more greenery that way. You might consider that.
Mr. Damrath: Okay.
'`.
Mr. Engebretson: What is your connection with this proposal tonight?
Mr. Damrath: Basically Sun draws the plans themselves in-house in
Philadelphia. They call us locally to work with yourselves
and present the project.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you an architect?
Mr. Damrath: I am an engineer. We have architects also on staff.
Mr. Engebretson: But you are not associated directly with the operator of this
business?
Mr. Damrath: No.
Mr. Engebretson: You certainly characterized it accurately when you talk about a
claustrophobic feel. We were there over the weekend. I am
just wondering are we just going to have a larger area of
shelves and merchandise or is this going to open it up?
Mr. Damrath: It will open it up. There is an island proposed for the floor
area that will have napkins, cups and condiments and they
will have a beverage dispenser and a coffee maker on the back
wall.
Mr. Engebretson: You certainly made a complete proposal. I think we got more
material from you on this 384 square foot addition to this
building than we did on a 130,000 square foot proposal. So
thanks for that.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. T.Pine and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-163-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-18 by Tech Express Corp.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Drawing D-1 dated August 31,
1994 by Sun Company, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Drawing L-1 dated June 7,
1994 by Sun Company, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
13660
adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
``. 3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Drawing A-2 dated May
25, 1994 by Sun Company, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
as well as subject to the following additional conditions required
by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) The dead and/or dying landscaping is to be replaced as soon
as possible;
2) The petitioner is to erect a "No Parking" sign on the west
side of the property (in front of the door) to discourage
customer parking which could create a traffic flow problem.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit
Application by Migneau Gilbert for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for residential property located at 18251 Middlebelt
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller: This satellite dish is existing and the applicant had gotten a
violation for not getting Planning Commission approval, which
is required by the ordinance. He is here before the Planning
`r.. Commission now to get approval. The existing dish sits 37
feet from the rear lot line and 26 feet from the south lot
line in the rear yard. The satellite dish is 10 feet in
diameter. It sits on a 6 foot high pole and the pole and dish
sit about 11 feet in height. On the application the applicant
has mentioned that the existing screening for the yard makes
the satellite dish not seen by the neighbors.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you want to add anything to that sir. We have had an
opportunity to get out and observe your installation.
Mr. Piercecchi: I viewed the site too and I don't think the particular dish
has a negative impact on the City and it is true you cannot
see it from the street. The neighbor who has the swimming
pool, he can see it and the people behind them from the second
floor can see it but they don't have any objection so I don't
see why we should.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and
unanimously approved, it was
13661
#9-164-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Permit Application by Migneau Gilbert for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for residential property located at 18251
Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 subject to the
following condition:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Migneau Gilbert,
received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 8, 1994, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the satellite antenna location is such that it will not
have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Site
Plans by Home Quarters in connection with Petition 92-11-2-48 for
the commercial building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the piece of property that was the former site of the
Source Club Warehouse that is located between Haggerty Road
and I-275, Eight Mile Road to the north and Seven Mile to the
south. Target is located in the adjacent building. They are
``. proposing to take over the existing building and also add on a
36,000 square foot garden center in the area between the two
stores. Because this new garden center displaces the existing
parking and because this area had a variance for deficient
parking, the variance that is existing becomes void and the
petitioner will have to go back and get a new variance for
deficient parking. Also, because while the whole area would
be incorporated into one parking count because both stores
share the same parking lot, Target and the new Home Quarters
will require 1594 parking spaces. The site now has provided
1383 spaces so they are 211 spaces deficient and they will
have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance for deficient
parking. (Mr. Miller presented the elevation plan) There
will be a canopy to the rear of the garden center to cover up
the lumber areas. There is also a brick wall that surrounds
the garden shop that will match the existing building. They
are also painting the building to brown tones with green
highlights. Those are Home Quarters colors.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Miller, wasn't there some talk about adding some
additional parking spaces?
13662
Mr. Miller: They were going to landbank them.
Mr. Morrow: How many would that account for?
'`► Mr. Miller: Sixty-three but they are still going to be short on parking.
Mr. Morrow: I think the Zoning Board gave them a variance of 160 spaces so
it is not the full 200 plus. It is 160 if they were to
develop the other. I look upon the landbank the same as
parking if it is required.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the parking behind Horizon considered in this?
Mr. Miller: It is not included.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why not?
Mr. Miller: They are not incorporated in this. The way this is figured
out is basically it is three separate parcels of property even
though it is one piece. You have Target and formerly Source
Club, now Home Quarters, and Horizon. Horizon will be coming
back to us because they are doing an addition but they are not
incorporated in this.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, they had a lot of parking when we were there.
They must have had 200 empty spots that I could see.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, the parking counts they gave us did not take into
consideration the Horizon property. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller: No. When I figured out the parking I drew lines to where it
would end up.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner like to add to those comments.
Marvin Walkon: I will be representing Home Quarters tonight. I am going to
try to give an overview. Tom Fischetti is here from Home
Quarters and he will be giving the detailed analysis. We also
have a person who has made a study of the parking and he will
be presenting himself. There are a couple of points I would
like to make. Home Quarters is requesting to take over the
building that was previously occupied by Source Club. I
believe it is a good use for that building. It places a good
corporate character in that building, which is presently
empty. Home Quarters has a presence in Livonia, as we are all
aware, at Schoolcraft, and while I am addressing that point,
let me address a comment on the Schoolcraft property. It has
come to my attention that lumber is being stored on the
outside, which has become a problem, although the overall
store I might mention, is number one in the country. It has
done a fantastic business but we are right now resolving that
problem. Mr. Nagy is going to be contacted in the next couple
13663
of days. By October 15 the great majority of the outside
storage is going to be changed where it is going to be inside.
Just a comment on that.
`. The other question that came up was the Source Club building
itself. That is irrigated, although in my inspection there
has been some amount of decaying of the trees. It is
irrigated but what has happened, there are no employees on the
site. It hasn't been watered in certain areas. Also, again,
Mr. Nagy is going to be contacted by Meijers tomorrow to find
out what the problem is to resolve it.
I feel Home Quarters is going to be an attribute to this site
for two reasons. One, it is compatible with the Target store.
Target is typical of the retailers that are going to do the
bulk of their business in November and December. Home
Quarters is basically a spring business so when one has a
great need for parking, the other will have their slow season
and vice versa. I think they are very compatible. If there
are no further questions, I am going to introduce Tom
Fischetti from Home Quarters.
Tom Fischetti: I am Design Manager of Hechingers, which is the parent company
of Home Quarters. You have heard most of the details of what
we are proposing to do with the existing Source Club building,
which is to add an outdoor sales area in order to have close
to a prototype Home Quarters operation. Several things I need
to point out about the garden shop are pretty critical to the
use. The garden shop is being added to the north section of
`�.. the store. As I am sure you heard in previous discussions we
are displacing parking. In addition to that it will require
additional parking. Displaced parking is somewhere in the
area of about 82 spaces and required spaces would be 33
therefore requiring 115 to be relocated or used or added for
this particular addition. We are proposing to add 63 spaces
in the far end of the site, which we believe is more useful in
the overall development in terms of combined needs of Target
and Home Quarters. We have discussed the Home Quarters use
and the amount of parking provided within the property line.
It is very close to 800 spaces. We are confident that the
actual need is closer to 650 and we have a report which you
will see and hear testimony on where Barton-Aschman describes
how we came to that conclusion. We feel that the bulk of the
additional parking that should be used for this parcel should
be closer to the Target location where we think it will
probably be more beneficial to the overall development and
that is why we are proposing the additional parking back in
this area. One of the points I want to make about the garden
shop itself is that the garden shop will be surrounded on
three sides with a solid 20-foot high masonry concrete precast
wall. We will not be painting the facility. The colors of
the facility are what is going to remain. We are intending to
13664
add a canopy across the front, which will be in a material
similar to what already exists in the front of the Source Club
building to provide protection for customers as they egress
the store. The rear portion of the building, we are intending
`'s► to raise the parapet in order to buy additional area for
signage and to construct a canopy that will basically shield
materials that need to be protected from the rain. Certainly
bagged goods and other types of materials will be located in
that area. All of this will certainly be shielded from view
from I-275 by the masonry wall and also by the canopy
structure. We are not able to provide a model in the short
time between our informal discussions last week and this
presentation but I did bring another drawing, which I will be
happy to present, which I think will clarify the issue of how
this will appear from the rear. (He presented the drawing)
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, the garden shop is going to be over the easement, is
it not?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: The drawing we are seeing here tonight, there is no problem as
far as the building itself interfering with the easement?
Mr. Nagy: The walls are going to be left open over that easement area
and that is what the gate is for, access to that enclosure.
Mr. Morrow: So we are getting a substantial looking garden area, and it is
only given relief where it needs to be?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Fischetti: I would like to ask Joe Marson to talk about our particular
calculations on parking.
Joe Marson: I am with the consulting firm of Barton-Aschman Associates
and we conducted a Parking Demand Study for the existing Home
Quarters stores to determine what we felt would be the
appropriate number of spaces that would be needed at this
location. I would like to briefly go through that analysis.
(Mr. Marson presented overheads with his analysis.)
Mr. Marson: Based on this analysis we determined they would need between
630 to 650 parking spaces. Again, they are providing 794
total parking spaces so we feel the parking is more than
adequate for many reasons. We have chosen the highest demand
store to base it on. We looked at the fifth highest day of
the year so we expect they would have adequate parking. If I
can answer any questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, can Target and this potential store here utilize that
parking behind Horizon without any problems?
'New
13665
Mr. Nagy: Correct. There are easement agreements.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask the gentleman from Home Quarters, does the
corporation have any stand as it relates to the width of the
parking spaces?
Mr. Fischetti: We tend to provide 9 foot spaces. We have opted to provide 10
here because that is the ordinance.
Mr. Morrow: We in Livonia try to hold fast on that 10 foot rule. We have
waived on that in the office environment but because of the
cost of cars and particularly with large item retailers we
think 10 feet should be the standard. We don't really like to
see 9 foot spaces. I am assuming this is all 10 feet.
Mr. Fischetti: The current lot is striped with 10 foot spaces. We are not
intending to change the lot.
Mr. LaPine: Is the footprint of this building basically the same as the
one at Schoolcraft and Middlebelt?
Mr. Fischetti: No they are quite different.
Mr. LaPine: At your Middlebelt store you have your wall all across the
north of the building, which is 15 feet high, and then behind
that we have all the storage in the back of the building.
Even where you have the wall, the storage can be seen above
the wall. As a matter of fact when I was out there checking
the site they have a big spotlight up there. You might as
Nor well take it down because you have stuff covering the
spotlight. Are we going to have that kind of an operation
here? Are we going to have that kind of outside storage that
high?
Mr. Fischetti: We have two situations at this particular location, which I
believe will correct that. First this yard will be
significantly larger than the yard at Schoolcraft. The other
issue is the building itself is 123,000 square feet whereas at
Schoolcraft we are at about 104,000 square feet. Schoolcraft
is the number one store in our chain, which means we have to
work very hard to stock it. I am certain at this store sales
will not equal Schoolcraft so we will not have as much product
nor the same problems.
Mr. TaPine: The Schoolcraft store is your largest store and it has more
parking than this location. Is that correct?
Mr. Fischetti: That is not correct. The Schoolcraft store has 720 parking
spaces. This one will have close to 790 spaces on the
property.
Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, and I am just curious about this.
13666
Livonia is 36 square miles. With your store that gives us two
Home Quarters in town. At this point we don't have a Home
Depot in Livonia but we have a Builders Square, which they are
looking for another site. How many of these type of stores
Ni can a community support?
Mr. Fischetti: I can't answer that question. I really have no clue.
Mr. TaPine: TO me, they talk about these big box stores. We have Home
Quarters right down the street from you at Six Mile and
Haggerty. You have your store. Northville has another one
that wants to go in there and they are being sued because it
was turned down by the Northville Council. I have a problem
with all these stores going in. I just can't believe they all
can survive. I don't think Handy Andy is going to survive. I
think it is just a matter of time before Home Quarters will
put them out of business. I understand competition is
competition but if these stores go under, as Source Club went
under, and fortunately we have someone willing to take it
over, but once they go under they are tough stores to
re-occupy. A good example is the old Joshua Door Shopping
Center or Marshals on Seven Mile and Middlebelt. One thing
wrong with those big type operations, they are tough to sell.
What can you do with them? I guess I am curious, that is why
I asked how much can a community handle of this type of
store. There are only so many people that will go to these
stores. The more stores you have, the less number of people
go to them. When they don't become profitable, big
corporations like Home Quarters, Builders Square, etc. they
%kw don't fool around. They will shut the store down and take
their losses. The community is stuck with the store. That is
why I am kind of reluctant to see that many stores go in
there. I am not opposed to this one because you are going in
an existing store and we are going to use it, but if it was a
brand new store you would probably have a problem.
Mr. Alanskas: If Livonia is doing so well, why do you want to double the
size of this store with a garden shop?
Mr. Fischetti: The stores that exist in the Detroit market, are no longer
prototype. The stores have increased in size and square
footage. The prototype now is 117,000 square feet with 35,000
to 40,000 square feet of outdoor sales. We determined we can
produce more sales and they are more profitable with the
larger facilities.
Mr. EngPhretson: I would like to make a couple of comments. First I would like
to thank Mr. Walkon for taking the initiative to see to it
that a couple of these problem areas are addressed both with
respect to the racetrack store and the landscaping on this
particular site. The actions that will occur, as I
understood immediately, are welcome and we will hold off
13667
sending the Inspection Department out there, giving you an
opportunity to follow through on these things, and we
appreciate that. I would also like to say I think the parking
analysis presented in this case is credible. I think that I
`''m. feel comfortable after having visited these stores on numerous
times and having heard all of the arguments made to support
Home Quarters' position on parking, which I feel has
credibility. In addition to that I took a slightly different
approach and looked at these two properties from the
standpoint of if they were single big box users on their own
property, not combined in a multiple type of center where the
ordinance would lighten up on parking spaces required. When
you do the math based on one space per 150 square feet
versus 125 square feet, then the parking that is provided
suddenly meets the ordinance, if that were the ordinance. Mr.
Shane and I and some others met with the Mayor today on other
subjects but we did discuss the fact that there is an apparent
reason to consider revisiting our ordinance as it pertains to
the big box retail uses and I think that is going to happen,
but I think you have made a very logical, sensible
presentation, not justifying something that just happens to be
squeezed onto a piece of property but it makes sense, and I
think that you realize that if you make it difficult for
people to park there, your customers have the opportunity to
go either one mile further to Home Depot or stop one mile
sooner at Home Depot where they have a huge parking lot. I
think the parking issue, while the Zoning Board of Appeals is
the only body that has the authority to grant that variance, I
would certainly expect that from our standpoint we can trust
Nor them to make the right decision there, and I am putting
parking out of my mind as it pertains to being an issue here.
I don't think it is an issue any more. I am concerned about
haw the folks at Target view this proposal. Are they here? I
presume they have been made aware of what is going on.
Mr. Walkon: Target has been made aware and they are in agreement. The
Jonna Company has landbanked those 63 spaces. Mr. Jonna is
present today and he has agreed to allow the usage of those 63
spaces for additional parking. Also represented today is the
General Counsel for Meijers in the event you have any
questions of Meijers.
Mr. Engebretson: Based on what we have learned here tonight that the irrigation
system that we are very concerned about does exist, it's just
that it hasn't been used and will be remedied, I am not sure
that I know of any questions for the Meijers' representative
but I would be interested in knowing from Mr. Jonna how this
issue is being resolved relative to ownership. Will the Jonna
Company still own this property and HQ will pave it and
maintain it?
13668
Mr. Walkon: My understanding is that each of the stores, Target and HQ,
each is responsible for their awn maintenance. There is very
little common area maintenance, and each store has an
opportunity to maintain the common area and the other is
Na.. responsible for repayment.
Mr. Engebretson: As I understand it Target awns their property; Meijers awns
the Source Club soon to be Home Quarters, if this is
successful, and Jonna Company owns Horizon, and I understand
Jonna Company also owns that area where the lanbanked parking
places are.
Mr. Walkon: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Does Jonna Company still own the parking area that is
presently landbanked, soon to be paved?
Mr. Walkon: The Jonna Company is allowing Home Quarters Company to use
that for parking. My understanding is Home Quarters Company
is going to pay for the parking in those 63 spaces.
Mr. Engebretson: Ownership will remain with the Jonna Company?
Mr. Walkon: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that right Mr. Jonna? Mr. Jonna said yes.
Mr. LaPine: The signage on this building, is that an issue here tonight?
�.. Mr. Fischetti: I guess we didn't discuss it fully during our presentation.
We are certainly going before the ZBA for signage and that
will be addressed on October 4th.
Mr. Nagy: Signage is not part of this. It requires a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine: Do you propose any signage on the expressway side?
Mr. Fischetti: Yes we do.
Mr. T.Pine: Why would you want it there? We drove down there and the berm
is up so high you won't be able to see it unless it is going
to be up above the building.
Mr. Fischetti: The rear elevation will be visible from I-275. We will raise
the parapet approximately 10 feet in order to install a sign.
Home Quarters will be visible from I-275 and that is in
keeping with what Target currently has.
Mr. Engebretson: I would implore, assuming all of these approvals are
successful, that you use your influence to convey to the local
management that will be put on site at this facility that the
13669
City of Livonia has a very high standard for the way in which
businesses operate and the housekeeping that they maintain,
and what we have seen at the Schoolcraft and Middlebelt
facility is deteriorating. It is not a good example. It is
'�•► not acceptable. Without dwelling on that, we would like to
avoid that situation developing at this site. That is the
request. As this process works its way through I suspect you
would be identifying a store manager early on. I ask that you
have him come in and visit City Hall to find out more
specifically what those requirements are if it is not clear
enough already. We would like to be cooperative and work with
HQ on these matters but we would rather see the matters not
come up than to have to find a way to resolve them.
Mr. Fischetti: Certainly we will do that. We have already started those
measures with the existing management and District Manager. I
had conversations today specifically about the existing store.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-165-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revised Site Plans by Home Quarters in
connection with Petition 92-11-2-48 for the commercial building
located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated Sept. 12, 1994
by Mickalich and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
'tom. adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 2 dated Sept. 9,
1994, as revised, by Home Quarters, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That the site shall be landscaped in conformance with the
previously approved landscape plan and the dead and/or dying
landscaping is to be replaced as soon as possible and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
4) That the site landscaping shall be irrigated by an
underground sprinkler system as previously approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand you are under a time constraint here. I am
wondering if you are looking for a seven-day waiver.
Mr. Fischetti: Yes we are.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the seven-day waiver. Mr.
Walkon was in here in January on the fast track and he had a
*4110,
13670
seven-day waiver and nothing happened on that parcel. I don't
see any reason to give these seven-day waivers. It doesn't
give the board an opportunity to change their vote or change
anything. I don't think it is fair. We don't recommend to
other petitioners and ask them if they want the seven-day
'o..- waiver. If we are going to do it, we should do it for
everybody.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked, I was in a meeting with representatives
from Heckingers and Home Quarters and Marvin Walkon and the
Mayor and a number of other people and we understood there is
indeed a very tight time constraint.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#9-166-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Revised Site Plans by Home Quarters in connection
with Petition 92-11-2-48 for the commercial building located at
20000 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
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.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 690th Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 20, 1994 was adjourned
at 10:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
c id
•
R. Lee Morrow, Secretary
ATTEST
,Jack Engebretson, Chairman
jg