HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-05-18 12805
MINUTES OF THE 664th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 18, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 664th Regular Meeting and 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 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present.
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
'to" have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 93-2-1-1
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1930-92,
proposing to rezone Dohany Subdivision, located south of Seven Mile
Road, west of Gillman Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, from
RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department would have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: This petition comes to us by direction of a City Council
resolution. I am going to ask Mr. Nagy, for the benefit of the
audience here and at home, to give us a brief background as to why
the Council asked us to hold this public hearing and maybe mention
the highlights of the merits or demerits of the act of either doing
this or not doing this.
i2806
iA.r. Nagy: For the information of the audience, as the Chairman. indicated,
this petition was not brought. before the Planning Commission as a
result of a request by the property owners but rather a request at
the council level of the City of Livonia. What brought it about,
`a. there have been over the years a series of lot splits or
combinations in this area. The property is zoned in its entirety
in a. RUF zoning classification and that is the very largest of the
residential lot sizes in Livonia, a full. 1/2 acre. As was pointed
out .in our presentation the subdivision was platted at a 40 foot
lot width and some of the lots have, in fact, been built at 40 foot
widths, some at 80 foot widths, and some combinations thereof. The
Council asked the Planning Commission to determine whether or not
there is a more appropriate zoning classification than 1/2 acre
given the platting and the history of the development of the area
so the study was trying to determine a zoning classification that
would make, hopefully, all the lots conform to one single zoning
classification. We do not, in Livonia, have a lot size less than
60 feet in width. The R-1 is the lowest zoning classification that
would allow for lot widths to be as narrow as 60 feet, not the 40
feet. As a result of our analysis we determined the majority of
the lots would conform to the R-1, 60 foot lot or larger. The
purpose here then is to bring to the extent possible the majority
of lots into compliance with one zoning classification. Our
hearing tonight is to determine from the affected property owners
whether or not it is in the City' s and your best interest to rezone
the property from the RUF classification to that of the R-l.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, are there any significant advantages or disadvantages
that would result from this change?
fie. Mr. Nagy: The purpose for having a complying lot versus a non-complying lot,
is that in the event if you were ever to want to add to your home,
build garages, or make other improvements, you currently would have
a non-complying lot if you have a lot size less than 1/2 acre lot.
Any improvement would not be automatically granted a building
permit. It could be denied because you have a non-conforming lot
size. The purpose for having complying lot sizes, you would avoid
that step of having to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and you
would automatically be issued a building permit provided you met
the other City requirements.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Since we are the petitioner here, we will
then go immediately to the audience to see if anyone wishes to
speak for or against this proposal.
Barbara McKay, 18530 Brentwood: I have a couple of questions. You say that we are
designated 1/2 acre lots. Therefore, why would we need to be
denied on our petitions if we wanted to build something? We do not
have any 40 foot lots, I don't believe, on our block.
Mr. Shane: You are not in the district that is proposed to be rezoned.
Ms. McKay: According to my notice, you will be building behind my home.
Mr. Engebretson: There is a misunderstanding. The area that is colored in is the
`row area that is under petition.
12807
Ms. McKay Then it will back up to my property.
Mr. Nagy: Your particular lot is not affected.
Ms. McKay: If you do put in a street there, will we be liable for the payment
of the street?
Mr. Engebretson: Did you order that street?
Ms. McKay: No.
Mr. Engebretson: If your property doesn't touch it, you certainly wouldn't be
involved in building that street.
Mrs. Fandrei: If Harrison did go through, it would abut her property.
Mr. Engebretson: I would assume that is a Council matter when they develop a
special assessment district. I don't know if we are in a position
to get into that tonight. I would assume if your property borders
that district, that you would be involved in it unless you were
excused for some reason by the Council
Ms. McKay: What type of housing do you plan on putting in there?
Mr. Engebretson: We are not planning on doing anything. This came to us as a
result of the City Council having dealt with some lot splits in
this area and every house that is there, to the best of my
recollection, is a non-conforming use right now. What we are doing
is we are bringing everybody there in conformance with the use.
The zoning would give them the advantages that Mr. Nagy outlined.
``r.
Ms. McKay: Will you be taking any property away from the present owners?
Mr. Engebretson: This is strictly a zoning issue. It has nothing to do with a
development of subdivisions and/or streets. It is strictly to put
the property into a zoning classification that would give those
property owners the ability to utilize their land without going
through all sorts of variance processes. The issue tonight is to
determine whether or not to change this zoning for the outlined
area to put it into a zoning district that is, in effect,
representative of the use that those homes are.
Ms. McKay: When will the City Council be voting on this?
Mr. Engebretson: We will vote on this tonight but the City Council will have a
public hearing and then it will go to a regular meeting.
Mr. Nagy: After the Planning Commission renders its recommendation to the
City Council, the City Council in turn will schedule a hearing and
give notice to you to the same extent the Planning Commission has
and there will be a hearing like what is being conducted tonight
only at that hearing the Council will have the benefit of this
Commission's recommendations but you will also be equally heard
before the City Council.
12808
Mr. Engebretson: I would say, just to make sure you are aware of the various steps
that they go through, you might call the Council office tomorrow
and give them your telephone number to make sure you are notified
each step of the way as this vents its way through the process,
although it sounds like you got notification here because you are
an abutting property owner, so maybe that is an overkill but it
might give you some comfort to know you will get that extra special
notice.
Mr. Tent: One comment. Maybe this will satisfy you. This is just a
housecleaning action. We are just cleaning up the area to come up
with uniform zoning in the area. There are no plans to build any
homes at this particular time as the Chairman pointed out. It is a
housecleaning effort on our part at the request of the Council.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do you know of any plans or have you heard of anything of
anybody going to develop Harrison further north and develop that
area?
Mr. Nagy: I do know Harrison, south of Seven Mile Road, there is someone
looking at developing that R-2 area but that is the extent of my
knowledge.
Linda Drummond, 18197 Lathers: My questions is on this map you have Harrison.
Right now there is no Harrison.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a paper street.
Ms. Drummond: You don't plan on building there?
```' Mr. Engebretson: As you heard there is no way of knowing what is going to happen
there long term but we are not aware of any plans now. There are a
number of paper streets in the City and from time to time,
development does occur.
Kirk Grubsky, 18620 Brentwood:I have a very simple quick question. The
change in zoning of this area, how will that affect the taxes of
people in this particular area?
Mr. Engebretson: We have dealt with these kinds of matters on more than a few
occasions and in the early cases we actually went to the Assessor
with an official request to answer that question. I am going to
ask Mr. Nagy to look into his total recall to confirm this but my
recollection is that this would have no impact whatsoever on any
tax matters. Is that right Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: That is exactly correct. Your present taxing is based upon the
true market value of your property as is. It is not based on
zoning. It should not have any affect whatsoever on your taxes.
Mr. Grubsky: I happen to live also on Brentwood so my property borders this
affected area that you are talking about. Unfortunately some of my
neighbors directly behind me, who I have been talking with
extensively and I expected them to be here tonight, that is why I
`rr.
12809
am here, they were primarily worried about the fact, it is a known
fact that several of the lots in this affected area are deadlocked
now because of the Harrison situation. The fear is that this is
just the first step of trying to unlock Harrison and open it up.
This issue came up, I believe seven years ago, and it was voted
down. I think the greatest fear is not so much the change in
zoning but it is the fact we are fearful this is leading up to,
maybe in three to four hears of opening up Harrison and that is
going to affect my property value and my neighbors.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you can depend on Harrison being opened up sooner or
later as most of us have the streets on all sides of us opened up.
The issue of whether or not it would affect your property value, it
may. It may improve it. It is almost a certainty though that will
happen, but whatever happens here tonight or whatever the Council
does with this is unlikely to have any impact on whether Harrison
ever becomes a real street or not because someone could come in and
acquire that land and develop it and probably apply for a rezoning
along the way. It could be developed right now in its current
zoning district. This appeared to us to have significant
advantages to the residents that are there along the lines that Mr.
Nagy outlined early on but if it is indeed a disadvantage to you
that that street may some day be opened up, that issue is a fact of
reality whether this zoning change occurs or not.
Mr. Grubsky: I wasn't living in this particular house when that issue came up
seven years ago. In essence what you are saying is although it was
voted down seven years ago, the issue is not dead.
Mr. Engebretson: The issue is never dead. The property owners along that paper
*to ' street, I think you will agree, have the right to use their
property.
Mr. Grubsky: I agree.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-2-1-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-93-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-2-1-1 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #930-92, proposing to rezone Dohany Subdivision,
located south of Seven Mile Road, west of Gillman Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, from RUF to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-2-1-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning district
which permits lot sizes more nearly equal to the majority of the
existing lots in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the development
of additional residential facilities in the area.
12810
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning districts in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
`ow #543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-1-4
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #54-93,
proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Northfield
Avenue, west of Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from RUF to
R-1.
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 rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: This petition also comes to us by way of a Council resolution and
I think it is a fair statement Mr. Nagy that we could put a ditto
here as far as the remarks on the previous petition relative to the
issue at hand.
Mr. Nagy: I would agree with you.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Slew Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-1-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
##5-94-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-1-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution ##54-93, proposing to rezone property located on the
south side of Northfield Avenue, west of Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 31 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-3-1-4 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed zoning district permits lot sizes which are
compatible to the existing lots developed on the subject property.
2) That the zoning district placed on surrounding lots in the area is
the same as is being proposed for the subject properties.
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.
12811
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-4-1-5
by the Disabled American Veterans requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from C-1 and P to RC.
`` . 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. However, at a
subsequent date, it will be necessary to review the extent of flood
plain associated with the site from a standpoint of buildings,
parking lots, etc.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your reasons
for making this request.
Donald McLean, 9610 Farmington Road: I am the Adjutant for the Disabled American
Veterans Chapter #114 of Livonia. To give you a little history,
when we purchased this property it was zoned RUF. We had hopes of
building a memorial home there and put the proposition to the City
to change from RUF to C-1 and P. Due to financial problems we were
unable to start the building. We subsequently bought another piece
of property at Newburgh and Joy Roads, which we now occupy as a
memorial home. We talked to the City Council and the Mayor and
told them we would make every effort to sell this piece of property
and get it zoned by the purchaser other than C-2 because they don't
want any more strip centers in the area. That is why we are
petitioning to have this property rezoned.
1411,. Mr. Morrow: Is this a speculative type zoning in an effort to sell the property
or do you currently have someone interested in the property?
Mr. McLean: Yes we have someone interested and they are here tonight. We were
approached by them and we worked out an agreement where we would
submit the rezoning petition so they could do the developing.
Mr. Morrow: So basically you have an offer to sell the land providing the
appropriate zoning is approved?
Mr. McLean: Yes sir.
Mr. Tent: Then the sale is subject to, is that correct?
Mr. McLean: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Would we be out of line asking who the buyer is and what he has in
mind?
Chester Bartosik: I am the architect and developer on this parcel. What we intend
on doing is to develop it into a two-bedroom condominium complex.
The preliminary drawing more or less speaks for itself. (He
displayed the plan) It is all surrounded by single family housing.
We want to build a 26-unit condominium project.
�.. Mr. Engebretson: How many buildings?
12812
Mr. Bartosik: Three buildings.
Mr. Tent: You will be before us with a site plan and then we will get into
all the details. If you get the zoning now, is this a done deal?
Are you going to go ahead with the project?
Mr. Bartosik: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Ken Ruth, 19302 Lathers: My property backs up to this property. I am curious as
to what these condominiums are going to bring as far as income.
Are they going to be low income? This could greatly have an affect
on my property.
Mr. Engebretson: It looks to me like there is a buffer there.
Mr. Nagy: There is some intervening property there.
Mr. Ruth: I am sure he will buy the other property. It is for sale also.
Mr. Engebretson: If they do that sir they will have to rezone that property. This
is a condominium development. Can you give us a rough idea of what
the price range will be?
Mr. Bartosik: We are looking around $89,000 a unit.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-4-1-5 closed.
'Nom.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-95-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-4-1-5 by the Disabled American Veterans requesting
to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from
C-1 and P to RC, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 93-4-1-5 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will allow for a more reasonable
development for a long and narrow parcel of property.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an alternative
type of housing for the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
`'rr.
12813
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-2-9
by Karim N. Yono requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
\., license for a proposed store to be located in an existing building on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Cavour
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
plan does not comply with the ordinance, therefore, the department
cannot approve the plan as submitted. Also in our file is a letter
from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objections to this
proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems
were found: 1. The door, windows and screens of the rear unit are
in poor condition. 2. There are holes and openings in various
parts of the building. 3. There are hanging electric wires and an
open electrical junction box at the front of the building. 4.
There is litter at the rear of the building. 5. The condition of
the interior mechanical systPma (plumbing, electrical and heating)
have not been inspected and may not be up to code. 6. The entire
building needs painting. 7. The building line is at the lot line
on all four sides and as such, there is no on-site landscaping or
parking. 8. The adjoining lawn area on the Cavour right-of-way has
been destroyed by vehicular traffic It should be re-landscaped.
9. The adjoining Five Mile Road right-of-way has been paved with
asphalt and was used for parking. The asphalt should be removed
and the area properly landscaped. They go on to say as a result of
the great demand placed on parking for a party store type use and
the need to use the adjoining streets to provide parking for this
property, this may not be a suitable location for re-establishing
this use.
We also have a note in our file that Maria Gargaro, the owner of
property at 15240 Middlebelt Road, was in to the Planning
Department to voice her objections to this petition. She felt
there were too many beer and wine stores in the area now.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Karim Yono, 7240 Oaktree, W. Bloomfield, MI 48332: We applied for an SDM license.
I am experienced. I have owned a store. I never sell beer or wine
to teenagers.
Greg Edgecomb: I am the broker involved in the sale. I guess the question I have
is the denial by the Police Department that it doesn't comply with
the ordinance. Is that regarding the parking situation?
Mr. Engebretson: It probably is because it clearly is not in compliance with the
ordinance.
12814
Mr. Edgecomb: All the problems with the building, the repair of the building, the
doors, the windows, the holes and the electrical wiring, etc. Mr.
Yono agrees to make those repairs if he gets granted an SDM license
here. The purchase agreement is contingent upon receiving the SDM
license. Without that, the building has no function. In regards
to the parking, this was a party store for many years and the
current building owners, the Mansours, operated it as a party store
in excess of 20 years. They operated with the street parking on
the side street and operated successfully like that. They sold the
business some four years ago and the person they sold the business
to let the license go back in escrow and because of their health
they were not able to go back in and open this party store back up
so the license did revert to the state. In your consideration for
the waiver, this was an SDM party store for many, many years.
Without this consideration we really don't know what to do with the
building. There is really nothing we can do with the building.
Mr. Yono's family owns several stores. He has many years
experience in the party store business. The Liquor Commission, of
course, will check his past experience. He has no violations. He
runs a very clean operation. Currently his family runs a store in
Westland. It is a nice clean operation. The side street will
allow the parking necessary to run the party store. Two or three
parking spots is all you need. I strongly hope you will consider
this waiver for this in terms of the parking situation. In terms
of the repair of this building, he agrees to make those repairs.
Mr. Tent: To the broker or Mr. Yono, who owns the property?
Salem Samaan: I am an attorney in Plymouth. I represent the owners of the
property, Mr. and Mrs. Mansour. They are the ones that operated
the store for many years as an SDM business.
Mr. Tent: How did the building get in such bad shape? If they are the owners
of the property, why did this get in this condition?
Mr. Samaan: I understand that and this is what we are trying to do here tonight
with the approval of the petition. Due to poor health Mr and Mrs.
Mansour were forced to sell their business to a third individual.
He unfortunately did not run a clean operation. The license
reverted back to the state. It was put in escrow. Licenses in
escrow can only stay there for a period of time after which they
are taken back by the state. The building has been up for sale for
three years. They have been trying to sell the store. Because of
their ill health they have not been able to reopen the store.
Finally, they were able to have a meeting of the minds with a
person who is willing to pay a price that is reasonable, not what
they wanted, not what they believe the building would have been
worth if they had sold it three years ago, but something at least
to get them out from underneath it. They are not able to continue
making the tax payments. As a fact, they are continuing to pay
just enough taxes to keep it from going on the tax rolls. What
they want to do is sell the building to an individual who is going
to come in and renovate it and bring it up to code and open it up
as an ongoing business.
12815
Mr. Tent: If everything is renovated and put in tip-top shape, where are they
going to park the automobiles?
Mr. Samaan: The same place they parked before.
r., Mr. Tent: That was illegal and this is a new petition coming forth. We have
to be concerned about the parking and they can't park on the street
and there are no facilities for the parking.
Mr. Samaan: This is a small grocery business. It is not a situation where
someone goes in and shops for 15 to 20 minutes. You walk in and
out. The longest anyone will stay in that location is maybe two to
three minutes. It is not a situation where a car is going to be
parked on the street, which is available for parking for more than
two to three minutes max. You are talking maybe two to three
customers.
Mr. Morrow: I think I am hearing that one of the recommendations was to remove
the asphalt and replace it with landscaping and put Cavour back in
shape from the parking there. If I am hearing that correctly, that
would not be done. They would not be complying with that. The
only thing I would add to what Mr. Tent said, you are requesting a
waiver of use, which means even if you have a regular commercial
establishment, this use would further intensify the use on that
property which amplifies the fact that you don't have any parking.
As one Commissioner I couldn't in good conscience allow a business
to operate that had no parking, particularly under a waiver of use
which means you are intensifying the use. That is where I am
coming from.
`44.1. Mr. LaPine: I can sympathize with your client. I wish there were some
accommodations we could do here to help but if you just had some
parking there, I could maybe look at this in a different light. To
give you an example, up the street at a restaurant the City
approved something there and the City came in and put up "No
Parking" signs on the side street of that building. The same thing
could easily happen here. If the City did that, then you wouldn't
have any parking. Secondly, has there ever been any negotiations
with the restaurant about purchasing this property and expanding
there or maybe tearing the building down and expanding their
parking?
Mr. Samaan: That is something that unfortunately the building owner of the
restaurant is in a situation where he states I will wait until it
goes on the tax sale and then I will buy it from the tax
department. Knowing they are in poor health and living on a very
limited income, he figures he will just wait it out and take their
property for free and that is basically what is happening here. If
he would make a reasonable offer, they might consider it but he
doesn't want to do that. He says I will wait and take it by the
tax sale.
Mr. LaPine: I think that would be the logical solution for this problem because
there is a problem. Quite frankly, when I was out there Sunday and
looked at the building, that building almost has to be completely
12816
renovated. The ceiling is falling down. The floor is in bad
shape. To me the whole building should be demolished. That is how
bad it is.
Mr. Samaan: The purchaser is willing to renovate it to City codes.
'toy
Mr. Engebretson: If you don't have anything to add sir there is a gentleman behind
you wishing to speak.
Bob Stefanovski: I am one of the owners of the restaurant at 29215 Five Mile Road,
that adjoins the party store. I am speaking on behalf of my father
also. The reason we are here tonight is we are having a problem.
Every time it rains, snows, whatever, since our buildings are
adjoined, his drainage is incorrectly draining onto my building and
into my parking lot and I have made several complaints to the
Ordinance Enforcement about this problem. It is deteriorating my
property as well as his. That building has been vacant since 1987
when I came in and purchased Cozy Corner and ever since then we
have been having problems. We have had to re-roof our property
three times. The roof is so badly saturated with water that if
anybody would step on it they would fall through. We asked many,
many times for him to go up there and remedy the situation because
it was damaging the inside of our restaurant and also leaking in
the kitchen area and they would never remedy it so we had to call
contractors out to fix that portion of it. Also, we had a problem
when it was an active party store. People would pull into our
parking lot. Even now, some people don't realize that the party
store has been closed for some time and they will drive right over
our lawn and try to park on that asphalt. We planted a tree and we
put two parking blocks up so they could not cross over the tree so
'taw we tried to solve that problem. Even when people came in to look
at it when it was for sale they would park in our parking lot and
we are limited on our parking. They have no parking. They have no
place to place a refuse dumpster to throw their trash away. We are
limited also but we have enough room where we can put all our
grease traps and our garbage and our parking but if the party store
were to open back up, they would have a problem with that. They
would be using our parking and our dumpsters. It has happened
before.
Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your frustration but what we are here to deal with
tonight is the issue of whether or not there should be a waiver use
for an SDM license. I understand that these things are related but
we are starting to move pretty far off track here and what happened
ten years ago is not particularly relevant.
Mr. Stefanovski: As of this time the building does not meet Livonia's
beautification ordinance. I think it would be unsafe for anyone to
open up a business in this establishment. Also we, as property
owners, highly suggest that the building be torn down and I also
believe that the community in the area would agree with me because
the previous ownership and activities that occurred in that place
brought it down to make it like it is.
12817
Mr. Edgecomb: I would like to comment that the Stefanovskis have made a very low
offer to purchase on this building and I think their intentions
here are not totally pristine. They want this to be denied because
they want to buy this building and tear it down. That is their
motive. I have an offer to purchase that was made by Boris, the
Nolo, gentleman's father, some months ago for $30,000 and when we
rejected it and countered it, I was told he was going to wait for
it to go on sale for tax sale and he was going to buy it then and
they will be very sorry they didn't do business with him. Since
then I have had another conversation with his son who said the
price is now $20,000. That is their motivation.
Mr. Morrow: The only thing I would respond sir is it is not our mission here to
determine what is an appropriate purchase price or anything along
those lines. It is strictly to see whether or not we should grant
a waiver of use for an SDM license for that location. I am sure
you have heard our biggest problem is the fact there is no parking
on the site. Other than that, from a waiver standpoint, I couldn't
possibly try to respond to what the property is worth.
Mr. Edgecomb: I am not asking for that. I just want to point out their
motivations.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of our concerns is there are other SDM licenses in the area.
This is something we have to look at. One of our main concerns is
there are others there. We have an abundance. If I had my way,
there wouldn't be any. My other concern is the parking, which we
have addressed. The parking, if it were allowed on the street and
you were to use the street as in the past, and the City came along
and put a sign "No Parking" as they did at the other restaurant
that was referred to, then the parking would end up back on top of
the City right-of-way. It would be going against everything we
have been trying to accomplish in the area. That is my feeling.
Mr. Samaan: From what I am hearing here is you are telling the owners of this
property, instead of trying to help them do something with this
property so they don't totally lose what they have invested for
over 30 years, it is just gong to sit there. They are not going to
sell it to the person next door based on comments he made. What we
would like to see happen is some kind of use. Maybe the
Commissioners could suggest some kind of use but any kind of
business you put in there is going to require parking so therefore
you are telling them to let the property go.
Mr. Engebretson: I think your original premise is incorrect. I think all we are
dealing with here tonight is the issue of the waiver use. We have
no wish to take sides with one party or the other.
Mr. Samaan: That is not my point. I am saying every kind of business is going
to lack parking. There is no parking. What type of business would
be able to go there?
Mrs. Fandrei: We empathize with any of our property owners who have these
problems. It isn't our job to side with one or the other as Jack
has said. We are commissioned to do what we see best for the
�... community as a whole.
12818
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-2-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
##5-96-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-2-9 by Karim N. Yono requesting waiver use
approval to utilize an SDM license for a proposed store to be located in
an existing building on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Middlebelt Road and Cavour Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 93-3-2-9 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the specific and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(r) of the
Zoning Ordinance which requires that such proposed SDM licensed
establishment shall be located at least five hundred (500) feet
distant from any existing S.D.M. licensed establishment and Section
18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the requirement for
off-street parking.
3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and
encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not
over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed.
5) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with
the adjoining uses of the area.
6) That the lack of land area for off-street parking will overburden
the adjoining businesses with additional traffic and will make it
necessary for vehicles to be parked within the adjoining street
rights-of-way.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#1543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-4-2-10
by Source Club requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license
for a proposed store to be located south of Eight Mile Road between
Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
6.
12819
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
\r. have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal
stating their departments have no objections to this plan. Lastly,
we have in our file a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found, therefore,
their office has no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us your reasons
for making this request.
Don Nunn: I represent the Source Club which is a subsidiary of Meijer, Inc.
What we are opening here at this time is a warehouse club similar
to a Sam's or a Pace. It is in the same philosophy as all the other
warehouse clubs. It is large packages and just as a convenience we
would like to offer beer and wine. Basically we offer a 24 pack of
beer and a small selection of wine just as an item they can pick up
if they so desire.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have other food items?
Mr. Nunn: Yes. We carry meats and produce. Not a full line of groceries.
It is a limited line of groceries and then we carry a lot of
general merchandise.
Mr. Tent: Do you intend to sell liquor at this store or will it strictly be
beer and wine?
Mr. Nunn: The Michigan Liquor Control Commission has ruled that they will not
issue liquor licenses to any warehouse clubs in the State of
Michigan. We are not pursuing it. We have applied for it but we
know they are denied. At this time they are not issuing to any
warehouse clubs in Michigan.
Mrs. Fandrei: When this is displayed, is it displayed behind the counter or is it
out on the open shelf?
Mr. Nunn: The beer is stacked on pallets. The wine is set up also in case
stackings. We don't put it behind counters. Being a subsidiary of
Meijers, we have a lot of controls through the cash register
system. We have a check ID program. No matter who comes up when
you scan the item it requests a check ID and you punch in a
birthdate of the person purchasing the product and that will clear
the person. If there is any doubt, you can override the system.
The system also does not allow you to sell it during the off hours.
We do not put it behind counters. We just put many other
restrictions on it.
Mrs. Fandrei: We had another petition for a grocery store come before us and I
had checked out how it was handled at Meijers and I was quite
satisfied with how it was handled at Meijers. They also had
security to keep an eye on it. Will this store have security
inside for that purpose?
12820
Mr. Nunn: I don't know the numbers but in all of our stores, Meijers and the
Source Club, we have our own security people to watch over things.
We do as much as we can to stop from selling to a minor. We will
have some security. I don't know the numbers. Personally I work
for Meijers but I am doing all the licenses for the Source Club.
`vr. We have a security force plus all the other things on line that
Meijers has.
Mrs. Fandrei: I was impressed with their methods.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-4-2-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-97-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-4-2-10 by Source Club requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an SDM license for a proposed store to be located south of
Eight Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-4-2-10 be approved
subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for this
facility for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
`„ use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-6-1
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #876-92,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58(a) to require site
plan approval of City Council for buildings constructed or expanded in
OS, C-1, or C-2, and for general office buildings constructed or
expanded in ML, M-1 and M-2.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a public hearing held at the direction of the City
Council, who a number of months ago sent us a request for a
recommendation as to whether or not we should change the ordinance
to pass all site plan approvals before them. In the past the City
Planning Commission had the authority to approve site plans in
12821
certain situations as it pertains to office buildings on very small
sites. We sent a letter back to them acknowledging the much larger
and difficult role they have in City government as compared to us
and that we could do the same good job that the Planning Ittom. has been doing for many years in the City and they received that
letter and told us to hold this public hearing anyways, so that is
what we are doing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this proposal?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-98-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-6-1 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution 11876-92, to determine whether or not to amend Section
18.58(a) to require site plan approval of City Council for buildings
constructed or expanded in OS, C-1, C-2, and for general office
buildings constructed or expanded in ML, M-1 and M-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-3-6-i be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is not required
to provide for the necessary protection against the inappropriate
development of land and buildings in the City.
2) That the current division of responsibility in the area of site
plan approval has served well to protect the public interest when
land and buildings are developed in the City of Livonia.
3) That both the rights of the public and those of private interests
are better served by a smooth and efficient site plan approval
process such as is currently in place.
4) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will place an
additional and unnecessary burden on private development interests
attempting to develop land in the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: The only thing I want to add is to amplify the latter part of that
motion. We have had some discussions in the past relative to the
control zones where our Building and Inspection Department has made
some decisions based on that and we looked at it long and hard and
the Council looked at it long and hard. We give a little latitude
because one of the things the City doesn't want to do is create a
problem and a lot of barriers and a lot of time lost in studying
site plans and things of that nature if it falls within one of the
bodies of the City of Livonia and I think we have been doing an
adequate job. To put another layer of government, not that the
Council wouldn't do a fine job, but the fact that we are adding a
12822
time frame to it in this day of competition to get people into the
City up and running, there should be some things that possibly
could be expedited over some of the other larger developments that
the Council might want to look at.
Mr. LaPine: Not to be redundant, I think Mr. Morrow put the item in its
perspective. There is no doubt over the years we have probably had
disagreement with the Council on some large decisions and probably
previous Planning Commissions and previous Councils but I believe
on the whole the process has worked fine and at this time I don't
really see any reason for change.
Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment and that is why I made a denying
resolution. I think the City is in good hands. Livonia is a
well-planned City and we have all been part of it and I don't think
we have let things slip through. We have all done our homework.
We each have our responsibilities. I feel by giving all this
ability back to the Council, what are we going to accomplish except
they will be overburdened. At this time I feel it has been
successful for the last couple of decades and why fix it if it
isn't broken.
Mr. Engebretson: I agree that this will put a further burden on developers and
property owners and I think it doesn't make any sense. The next
item on our public hearing agenda is in the same spirit to make it
easier on property owners to change signs without going through
this long process of going through the Planning Commission, Zoning
Board of Appeals and City Council to change the face of a sign. I
think this all came about when a site plan was approved down on
Schoolcraft Road and one member of the Council was caught by
surprise and wasn't aware this was happening and it really upset
him. I think this was a very emotional response to that particular
item. I don't think it is because the Planning Commission hasn't
been doing a good job. Furthermore, I would say if it is logical
to do this, then it may be logical for the Council to do all the
work of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board, etc. Where
do you draw the line. I think this is totally inappropriate from
all points of view so I will support the denying resolution.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-6-2
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site plan approval.
Mr. Engebretson: This is the same kind of issue although it did not come to us by
the City Council. This is on our own initiative to lighten up on
property owners who wish to change signs that meet the ordinance to
enable them to do that without going through this process of
meetings like this and going through the Zoning Board at times and
the Council at other times.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-6-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
12823
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site
plan approval, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-3-6-2 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will clarify
the matter of replacement signs and previously approved signs in
commercial areas.
2) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide
for a much more efficient process regarding signs while, at the
same time, protect the public interests.
Mr. Tent: I have one question before we vote on this. While this is a good
resolution, etc. , will it also control the color? In other words,
can someone come in and put an obnoxious color in respect to a sign
say like Tremors or the NBD bank at Six Mile and Newburgh? Can
they go ahead and bring in a color change even though the sign and
everything is the same?
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, doesn't this still get controlled by the Building
Department?
Mr. Nagy: When a sign is first approved, if it is white background with red
letters, that becomes an approved color scheme. The petitioner and
applicant have to adhere to that. If that tenant goes out and a
new one comes in and they want a new sign to replace that sign, as
`ora. long as the sign area, the sign letters stay the same there is no
problem. If he wants to change his color scheme, all of that is
reviewed and approved. Once a new scheme is approved, as long as
they adhere to the overall parameters, the size, the letters, etc.
then that new plan has to be adhered to. You can't have a red sign
today and a blue sign tomorrow without going through the full
process.
Mr. Tent: What we are saying here is we are protected to that extent. Sign
per sign they could meet some configuration changes within the
parameter of the size but when it comes to changing the color, they
have to abide by the initial color combination?
Mr. Nagy: When the new tenant comes in, he has to submit a sign for the new
permit to replace the face of the sign or to change the sign
letters. He has to adhere to what was previously approved but he
can't change the color scheme, he can't change the sign size or the
letters but during the course of the time he can't just arbitrarily
change colors. When the plan is approved initially, that is the
plan that you adhere to. If a new plan comes in and supersedes the
previously approved one, then that superseded one will have to be
adhered to whether it is by the existing tenant or a new tenant.
Mr. Tent: But the sign doesn't come in for anybody's approval?
12824
Mr. Nagy: They have to go through the permit process and that is going to
trigger whether or not we could do it administratively or whether
it requires Commission and Council approval.
'rr.-
Mr. Tent: So there is a check point there. As long as we have some
protection.
Mr. Engebretson: I think when the sign permit is requested if it were
particularly obnoxious, we are trusting them to have the wisdom to
check that out.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want to belabor the point but what Mr. Tent brought up is
the same problem I have. Under section (f) it says "Replacement
signs (wall signs, marquee or awning signs and freestanding signs)
provided that there is no change in sign area, size of individually
fabricated letters or the size and dimension of a container or
panel containing a sign." I don't have any problem except with the
awnings. The only part of the awning that is a sign is the letters
that are on the awning. So if a guy has a red awning, he can
conceivably change that to an orange awning as long as the letters
on the awning do not change from the size and the letters on the
original awning. It doesn't say anything in there about you can't
change the color of the awning.
Mr. Shane: The awning isn't the sign. If he had black letters on a yellow
awning and he wanted to put white letters on a yellow awning, he
can do that.
'saw Mr. LaPine: There is nothing that says he can't change the color of that
awning.
Mr. Shane: If he changes the color of the awning, he will be back before us.
Mr. LaPine: It doesn't say that in here.
Mr. Shane: That is because an awning is not a sign. An awning is a structural
part of the building.
Mr. LaPine: I thought we amended the ordinance with the awning signs to spell
all of this out. To me, if somebody comes in and wants to change
an awning sign, as long as he doesn't change the sign and the
letters on that awning, he can put in any color awning he wants.
Mr. Shane: If he came in and wanted to put up an awning without a sign at all,
if he asked for a red awning and comes back a while later and wants
to put up a blue awning, he has to come back before us. It has
nothing to do with the sign. Now if he puts a sign on the awning
and wants to change the sign, that is what we are dealing with.
Only the sign not the awning.
Mr. Nagy: It is just the same analogy as a wall sign. The walls, awning,
canopy, etc. are all building elements. Those things are regulated
through the site plan approval building elevations process. What
we are regulating here are the graphic applications to those
'Nom.
12825
building components, whether it be wall signs, canopy signs, etc.
That is what we are regulating. The building components are
previously regulated through the site plan approval process.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, last week I asked you about Ethan Allen and the exterior
change on that building and I remember your comment was they had
made no other change in that building and they were allowed to
change the exterior and that is what Bill is talking about.
Mr. Shane: There are a lot of cases around town where buildings were built
without site plan approval. Ethan Allen was one of them. If they
were to change the exterior elevation without adding to the
building or parking lot, the normal procedure has been that they do
that through the permit process. There was never a site plan
approved to modify. If it is in a control area, then that would
come before you. It is the same with respect to a sign. If a sign
goes up in a control area, then it is a site plan approval process.
If a sign is on a building which never had site plan approval, then
it is a permit process. This doesn't change that process at all.
There are signs which you don't approve now unless they are in a
control area or unless they are attached to a site plan. Ethan
Allen, in that case I believe it went to Zoning Board of Appeals
because there was a violation of the ordinance in that process
somewhere along the line but it would not have come to you nor the
Council, nor would it had gone to the ZBA if they had been in
conformance.
Mr. Tent: I move this item be tabled until we can get some more information
and come up with a clean bill of goods.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
1/5-99-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site
plan approval, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 93-3-6-2 until the study meeting of May 25, 1993.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow
NAYS: McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-6-3
by the City Planning Commission to amend Sections 9.07, 10.06, 11.06,
25.07, 26.07 and 30.07 regarding protective walls so as to provide
language also referring to greenbelts.
12826
Mr. Engebretson: This is a housekeeping procedure to amend the language of the
ordinance to correspond to the change that was made recently to
allow for the possibility of a greenbelt to be used as a barrier
between residential and non-residential uses in lieu of walls which
\.► have been previously used. Is there anyone in the audience wishing
to speak on this matter?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-6-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#5-100-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18,
1993 on Petition 93-3-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend
Sections 9.07, 10.06, 11.06, 25.07, 26.07 and 30.07 regarding protective
walls so as to provide language also referring to greenbelts, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 93-3-6-3 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will alert
prospective land users of the possibility of substituting a
greenbelt for a protective wall in those instances where a wall is
required.
2) That the proposed amendment will keep the Zoning Ordinance current.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended.
`r.► A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Letter dated April
14, 1993 from Jay Ross of Northridge Commons Associates requesting a
one-year extension of Petition 91-12-2-34 by Nathan Levine & Assoc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a Goodyear Tire, Mr. Muffler
and Precision Tune stores to be located in the Northridge Commons
Shopping Center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step up to the podium.
Melissa Jenkins: I work for Ross Financial Companies and represent Northridge
Commons.
slimy Mr. Engebretson: Where is Mr. Ross?
Ms. Jenkins: In Los Angeles.
12827
Mr. Engebretson: We had tabled this item to ask Mr. Ross to come in and discuss
some of the details of the plan. We will need a motion to remove
this from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
`low it was
#5-101-93 RESOLVED that, the request for a one-year extension of Petition
91-12-2-34 by Nathan Levine & Assoc. requesting waiver use approval to
operate a Goodyear Tire, Mr. Muffler and Precision Tune stores to be
located in the Northridge Commons Shopping Center located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: We were interested in getting information from Mr. Ross or was he
going to substitute for you? When we met with you last time you
asked us to move it forward because you were unable to be there and
Mr. Ross was going to be with us and then because he wasn't there
we tabled the item until tonight. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Jenkins: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: How would you like to proceed. Do you want to tell us where you
stand with your proposed tenant?
Ms. Jenkins: We are currently in lease negotiations with them and we would hope
to have it completed by June 15.
fir-
Mr. Engebretson: That is consistent with what you told us before. Has anything
changed?
Ms. Jenkins: Gold's Gym is moving into the center but that is not part of Phase
II.
Mr. Tent: What you are discussing here is Goodyear Tire Store. That is it.
We are not discussing Mr. Muffler or Precision Tune?
Ms. Jenkins: That is correct. Only one store.
Mr. Tent: If this extension were granted, when do you propose to start
building or finishing the project?
Ms. Jenkins: We are projecting having the lease with the other tenant signed by
June 15th. We have tried to establish a target date for the lease
execution with them by that date. They feel they can probably meet
that closing. Once the lease is executed they will have plans for
us. At the same time we will reconfigure our existing plans. We
will then submit those to the City for a permit. I would say it
would take at least 60 days.
Mr. Tent: Are you requesting a one-year extension or would six months be
appropriate?
Ms. Jenkins: We could go for a lesser amount. My only concern is the plans for
the tenant need to go through the entire process of Planning.
Commission, City Council and Zoning Board of Appeals.
12828
Mr. Tent: We can take care of that within the six months.
Ms. Jenkins: Then six months would be fine.
\r. Mr. LaPine: The Phase II, which is the building that is up there now, that was
started and the structure was never finished. If I understand what
you said, you are signing an agreement by June 15th for Goodyear to
come into that building?
Ms. Jenkins: No an additional tenant. The Goodyear lease has been signed for
over a year.
Mr. LaPine: How come they haven't moved into the building?
Ms. Jenkins: The financing we had originally set up to build Phase II was
predicated on three tenants going in and when only one tenant was
approved, we lost our financing.
Mr. LaPine: If I remember right, when you came in with Goodyear, all you were
interested in was getting this approved because you had them in
your pockets. They were going to come in and the whole building
was going to be completed. Now you are telling me that you can't
complete the building until you get three complete tenants?
Ms. Jenkins: No. The financing we had established was based on having three
tenants. I erroneously assumed the financing would still be able
to go through just for one tenant based on Goodyear's reputation
and credit standing and our financial company turned us down and
would not let us build our building at that point and lend us the
money. Now we are proposing this building. Once we come back with
new plans, there will be two tenants, Goodyear plus one tenant that
will take up the remainder of the space.
Mr. LaPine: So at the time you get these two tenants, this building would be
completed. Let's assume the second tenant falls through, then you
have to start looking for another tenant and I am going to have
that structure out there for another year?
Ms. Jenkins: I certainly hope not.
Mr. LaPine: I hope not too. Quite frankly, I live in the area and it is
degrading to the neighborhood. It has been there for years. In my
opinion the City should have made you tear the building down. I
have reached the end of my patience quite frankly. I don't
understand what you people are doing out there. Either complete
the building and hope you get a tenant or take the building down.
I am amenable to letting you go in for another six months but I am
telling you right now I won't vote for any more extensions.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it is important that you take the message to Mr. Ross
that if this is successful that the next time we deal with this
issue, we will probably initiate some kind of condemnation to
request that building be demolished.
Ms. Jenkins: I understand. I live in Livonia.
12829
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-102-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 14, 1993 from Jay Ross
of Northridge Commons Associates requesting a one-year extension of
``rte Petition 91-12-2-34 by Nathan Levine & Assoc. requesting waiver use
approval to operate a Goodyear Tire store to be located in the
Northridge Commons Shopping Center located on the south side of Eight
Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that an extension be granted for a period of six months
from the date of this resolution subject to the condition that the
entire proposed building shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Goodyear Company for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has demonstrated a need for additional time to
complete the project.
2) That completing the subject project is in the best interests of
both the City and the petitioner as well as the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 663rd Regular Meeting held on April 27, 1993.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
f#5-103-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 663rd Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on April 27, 1993 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-4-8-4
by J. D. Dinan Company requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance ##543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to a building located at 28815 West Eight Mile in
Section 1.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
/15-104-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-4-8-4 by J. D. Dinan Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #1543
in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to a building
located at 28815 West Eight Mile in Section 1, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: This is a proposal to construct a 2000 sq. ft. office addition to a
�``�' building known as the Hearthstone Office Center, which is located
12830
on the south side of Eight Mile between Brentwood and Middlebelt
Roads. The addition would be located on the rear of the building.
The site plan illustrates that the parking and landscaping meet the
requirements of the ordinance. The new addition will be put on in
_ such a way that it will look like it has been a part of the
building for a while. The same materials will be used. It will
have the same architectural design as the building and all
materials will match the existing building.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dinan, I know there were some questions that we were hoping
to discuss with you relative to some of the plans you have for not
the expansion itself but for the site in general.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Dinan, I am sure you heard from your architect the comments we
made about the property. Maybe you would be able to present to us
what your plans are for the care of the property.
John Dinan: Has anybody been there in the last few days. We have remedied the
parking lot problem. We resurfaced the major portion of the
parking lot and repaired other sections. I think you would be
pleased with the parking lot. Secondly, there was a pile of leaves
that was stockpiled at the westerly portion of the parking lot. We
have since had those removed. We are putting new wood chips down.
The island portion has the new chips and you can see we stockpiled
some of the chips for other areas. One bugaboo that we have is the
landscaping in front of the building, this particular building,
28815, because of the overhang and the architectural amenities to
the building, we don't get proper sunlight or water to some of
those sections. So we are planning on extending our spray at least
down to the center of that building. That will improve conditions
so I think planting materials will survive. We have lost several
plants in that area and we think this may be the answer. We have
ordered the shrubbery and we are just waiting for the irrigation
people to put that water extension in there so we can plant that.
We have taken into consideration a lot of the comments that were
made at the last meeting. I think we have made some progress.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of the areas I was concerned about and I think the last time
you were before us we addressed it, the westerly portion of the
parking lot, and evidently as I remember it, the bumper blocks were
not in good shape, going over the edge down into the lower area
behind the cemetery and at the westerly portion of the property.
Now you have two rows of bumper blocks there right?
Mr. Dinan: I really haven't noticed that.
Mrs. Fandrei: We have two loads of bumper blocks. Your property goes down the
side of that ravine?
Mr. Dinan: A very limited amount.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of the major concerns when I was on ZBA, which was about 7 to 8
years ago, is the same concern that I see there today. It seems to
be a dumping area for tires, an old air conditioner, large items
that really should be removed from your property.
12831
Mr. Dinan: You think someone in the neighborhood is using it as a dump?
Mrs. Fandrei: Someone is using it.
Mr. Dinan: It is not all my property.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am wondering if a fence along that area would eliminate that
problem.
Mr. Dinan: I don't think so. They would throw it over the fence. The only
thing we could do is put up a sign saying they would be prosecuted
or something along those lines. Possibly we will just have to
police it. We will take the responsibility of removing the debris
and putting a sign there.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, might there be any other suggestions you might have?
Mr. Nagy: We can make this a condition of approval that a sign shall be
properly posted and also ask the Inspection Department to police
it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Would a fence be in order?
Mr. Nagy: As pointed out I don't think a fence itself would be a deterrent.
We want to have an aesthetic site. The fence would defeat our
purpose.
Mrs. Fandrei: Except for ten years, give or take, rubbish has been thrown there.
It is not working. Myself I would like to see something a little
Lr. more permanent than a sign.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dinan has just agreed he is going to clean it up and keep it
clean.
Mrs. Fandrei: I have heard that before.
Mr. Dinan: This is the first time this particular item has come up in the last
five or six years. If there was a major problem, I am sure the
department would have contacted me.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is a problem as I see it but not too many are aware of it
because it is tucked back behind the cemetery.
Mr. Dinan: Nobody knows about it unless you go looking for it.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is where the parking is going to be.
Mr. Dinan: Nobody parks there.
Mrs. Fandrei: If you put on an addition, where else are they going to park?
Mr. Dinan: A big section is never used.
12832
Mr. Nagy: Mr. Dinan doesn't own the flood plain. If he agrees to police the
flood plain, he is actually taking responsibility to go off his
property and clean up the situation and taking responsibility for
property he doesn't really own.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I read the blueprint a good portion of his property does go down
the side of that ravine.
Mr. LaPine: In all due respect to Mr. Dinan, I think what is happening, you
have people with a dump truck that are coming in there at night.
There is no way in the world Mr. Dinan can police that 100%. My
suggestion was when I was out there, the Chairman and I thought
maybe a fence going down between the two bumper blocks might be the
solution. At least that would stop trucks from backing up and
dumping their load there. You would have a full time job policing
that and keeping it clean and I commend you for doing what you are
promising to do tonight but I think you are going to find that you
will be doing it quite frequently unless there is some way you can
stop it.
Mr. Dinan: I don't think it has been cleaned for over five years.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dinan I think you have such a good reputation in the
community that this is out of character with everything you do and
I suspect it is something you are not aware of. If you would take
a look back there once in a while, I think it would solve the
problem. If it is not your desire to have a fence there, it is
okay with me.
Mr. Dinan: I will definitely keep an eye on it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-105-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-4-8-4 by J. D. Dinan Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to a building
located at 28815 West Eight Mile in Section 1, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as sheet 1 dated 4/15/93, as revised, by
Michael A. Boggio Associates, Architects is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as sheet 2 dated 4/9/93, by Michael A.
Boggio Associates, Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3) That the petitioner correct the following site deficiencies as
enumerated in the letter from the Inspection Department dated April 20,
1993, such as:
- the renovation and refurbishing of all landscaped areas
12833
- the removal of debris and litter from the parking lot and adjacent
drain area
- the removal of all leave piles from the parking area
- the repair of all pot holes and deterioration to the asphalt in the
parking lot
'tor - the upgrading of all damaged or missing curbing adjacent to the
parking area
4) That no Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until each of the
above conditions are met to the satisfaction of the City's Department
of Inspection.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Building
Elevations in connection with Petition 92-10-2-42 and Sign Permit
Application for one wall sign by Hechinger Company, on behalf of Home
Quarters, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This is for Home Quarters that is located at Middlebelt and
Schoolcraft. They are proposing to revise their elevation. One
change is they are moving the entrance more to the middle of the
store and adding a white tower canopy over the entrance area. They
are also adding a greenhouse to the garden shop underneath the
canopy. The building also changes from a beige color to a gray and
they are adding a white accent stripe around the building. They
are also asking for approval of the signage. They are allowed 410
square feet. They are asking for 409 square feet so it is
`"' conforming. The plans show that only the "HQ" over the entrance
will be illuminated. The rest of the signage will not be.
Charles Tangora: I am here with Ken Moffett of Home Quarters. I think that the
changes have been pretty well explained both tonight and at the
study session last week. If there is something we can address, Mr.
Moffett is the expert here.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, I would like to be assured on the record here that
we aren't giving up any of the aesthetic qualities that were
included in the originally approved site plan relative to the
scoured block, etc.
Mr. Tangora: I think the material is the same consistency. The only thing that
has changed is the color.
Ken Moffett: I represent Home Quarters. That is correct. The material will be
the same. Essentially the change is in the color. However, on the
tower I believe the original proposal was called standing-seam
metal painted green and now we are asking for a drivet.
Mr. LaPine: Is the greenhouse area going from an open area to an enclosed
greenhouse?
12834
Mr. Moffett: Yes. That greenhouse is 60' x 80' . The original proposal was to
have a canopy that covered the entire garden shop. The canopy now
will stop short of the greenhouse and would make it 80 feet less.
The greenhouse is a structure in itself. The canopy starts where
,ft. the greenhouse ends.
Mr. Morrow: The greenhouse would be that closest to Schoolcraft?
Mr. Moffett: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: The greenhouse is accessible from the interior versus outside?
Mr. Moffett: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote yes for this proposal and I want to congratulate
Home Quarters for complying with our sign ordinance. We have a
good sign ordinance and you have come in and you have complied. I
wish we would have other petitioners that would do that rather than
going to the ZBA because they don't like what we put in our
ordinance. Thank you again and good luck to you in your new
operation.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding that greenhouse on the elevation facing Middlebelt,
would you describe that area that would be right in front of the
building?
Mr. Moffett: We have an area of brick that is approximately five feet or so that
the greenhouse would sit on and then there are a series of
pilasters of which there is a vinyl faced screened grid wire. (He
went on to describe the outside of the building)
"4011.-
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#5-106-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revised Building Elevations in connection with
Petition 92-10-2-42 and Sign Permit Application for one wall sign by
Hechinger Company, on behalf of Home Quarters located on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in Section 25,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Elevation and Sign Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 4/15/93 by
Hechinger Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Site Plan, defined as drawing number C-2 dated 1/7/93 by
Professional Engineers Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Engebretson, Morrow, McCann, Fandrei, Tent
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12835
Mr. Tangora: One final request, we would like you to waive the seven-day rule.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#t5-107-93 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 the Revised Building Elevations in connection with
Petition 92-10-2-42 and Sign Permit Application for one wall sign by
Hechinger Company, on behalf of Home Quarters located on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in Section 25.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-8-5
by Borg Warner Automotive, Powdered Metals Corp. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.53 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to locate two temporary tube trailers and
construct a permanent storage tank structure for the containment of
hydrogen and nitrogen gases on the property at 32059 Schoolcraft Road in
Section 27.
vow Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Schoolcraft between
Hubbard and Merriman Roads. The front faces Schoolcraft and the
rear faces Industrial Drive. They are proposing to park two
temporary tube trailers in the rear area, which is the rear parking
lot. This would be temporary for approximately four to five
months. One would contain nitrogen gas and one would contain
hydrogen gas. They are also asking approval to construct a
permanent facility to house hydrogen and nitrogen gas. Because of
the uniqueness of the site, we are relying heavily on the Fire
Marshal's recommendations and we have asked him to attend tonight's
meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have the Fire Marshal's report?
Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal in his report indicates "This Division has
reviewed the issue of a proposed above ground storage tank
containing liquid hydrogen at the subject location. The product is
classified as a highly flammable gas. Physical and chemical
properties of this product would present unique challenges to the
City and responding emergency personnel should an incident occur.
"However, while this storage system is unique to the City, it is
not unique to other municipalities. Fire Marshal Klinger and
myself have surveyed a similar installation in Detroit and were
12836
"apprised of the many safeguards built into the system. We are
confident of industry's commitment to design and install such
system(s) with built-in safety factors which would minimize the
possibility of a fire involving the liquefied hydrogen system
and/or the commercial property(s). Therefore, this Division, with
concurrence from Fire Chief Knorp, supports the petitioner's
request for installing such a system.
"Should the Planning Commission grant the petitioner's request to
install a liquefied hydrogen system, this Division expects such a
system to conform to NFPA 1/50B, Liquefied Hydrogen Systems At
Consumer Sites, in its entirety as a "minimum" standard. The plan
review process may dictate more stringent requirements including
but not limited to a central station alarm system for leak
detection and lighting to illuminate the system at all hours during
times of darkness.
"Further, as with many other local industrial installations, the
Livonia Fire Department will enjoy the petitioners cooperation in
its attempt to educate, inform, and promote fire safety awareness
of its particular hazardous product(s). This can be accomplished
through on-site inspections and/or training supplied by the
petitioner and supplying this Division with available video tapes
dealing with the subject for in-house training and/or review.
"If you have further questions in reference to the above, please do
not hesitate to contact me on Ext. #212." This letter was signed
by Rockney L. Whitehead, Sr. Inspector of the Division of Fire.
Mr. Engebretson: That was a good letter. It answered a lot of questions and
concerns we had. Will the petitioner please come forward and add
whatever comments you feel are appropriate.
Dave Oprisiu: I am the Manufacturing Engineer Supervisor for BorgWarner
Automotive. As I said in the letter we are petitioning for this
gas because we have new products coming in for the year 1994 and as
part of that product we need the nitrogen and hydrogen gas for our
furnaces. This is the first step involved in getting the gas at
our plant.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. LaPine and I were out there last Sunday and we noticed the
way to get to the parking lot back there where these materials
would be stored is rather a tight series of turns around the
building and while I am sure that fire trucks could get through
there, I am wondering in the back of the building there is no way
to get out on that street. I am not saying there should be, but
for emergency purposes I am wondering if there should be some way
for the fire department to get access from the rear. Right now if
they took a fire truck in there to what appears to be an opening,
they would be hopelessly hung up in what appears to be a certain
amount of disarray or some landscaping is being done. Do tractor
trailers go back there?
Mr. Oprisiu: Yes they do. They have 60 foot rigs drive around there. We do
have plans, hopefully this summer, to put a drive in the back.
12837
Mr. Engebretson: Would that be for emergencies or for general purposes?
Mr. Oprisiu: General purposes.
'tawMr. LaPine: When the permanent unit is put in, how tall will that tank be?
Mr. Oprisiu: The hydrogen tank will be 20 feet high.
Mr. LaPine: How high is your building?
Mr. Oprisiu: The building is 30 feet tall.
Mr. LaPine: I was just curious if it will be seen from Schoolcraft.
Mr. Oprisiu: No it will not be seen from Schoolcraft Road.
Mr. LaPine: On your west side of the building you have six small tanks. What
are those tanks?
Mr. Oprisiu: Propane gas.
Mr. LaPine: What do you use there now, natural gas?
Mr. Oprisiu: Yes natural gas.
Mr. LaPine: When this process is put in, will you discontinue using natural
gas?
Mr. Oprisiu: We will still be using natural gas.
Mr. Nagy: In addition to the report from the Fire Marshal we also have one
from the Inspection Department. They indicate in their report:
1. This is now a double front lot. No storage of vehicles,
equipment or supplies is to be permitted in the required 50' front
yard. 2. A driveway should be installed opening onto Industrial
Road. 3. The dumpsters should be relocated to a less conspicuous
location. 4. An improved landscape plan should be developed for
the south end of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: Do the BorgWarner representatives have anything to add?
Mr. Oprisiu: No.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Whitehead, let me compliment you on a very thorough report.
We were depending on your judgment here because these are matters
we don't have any expertise on and we do appreciate the
thoroughness of the job you did.
Mr. Tent: The nature of the product, in the event there was a problem, an
explosion, etc. , would that penetrate upwards or would it expand to
the perimeter?
Mr. Whitehead: If a leak occurs, even what appears to be a small leak, you are
going to get a large vapor cloud. So if you have a large leak, an
explosion is possible.
12838
Mr. Tent: Will it go up?
Mr. Whitehead: The vapors themselves tend to rise very rapidly so while it may go
out, I would say a lot of it would go up.
Mr. Tent: That was my concern. If there was an accident, I was concerned how
it would affect the surrounding area but if it went strictly up
into the atmosphere, it would self-contain into a smaller area,
then it wouldn't affect anything in the adjacent area.
Mr. Whitehead: We certainly wouldn't want to consider this as being a vertical
explosion. We do have to consider the exposures and neighboring
tenants and other buildings and there are set-off requirements for
property lines and other buildings that are required in the NFPA
standards and we would use that as a guide.
Mr. Tent: You feel in your professional judgment that all precautions have
been taken in this particular matter and there are enough safety
valves and requirements there to prevent anything from really
getting bad.
Mr. Whitehead: From what we have observed and what we have been told. Some time
has been spent with the Fire Marshal of Plymouth Michigan. They
had a similar site in their City. We feel that the industry as a
whole is very committed to fire safety and life safety so we are
confident in their abilities. However, we don't think the
standards as they are written are the end all and we regard them as
a minimum that we would accept and we always look to improve upon
them if needed. We don't want to overreact or overdesign or have
industry overdesign but we are certainly looking out for the whole
City.
Mr. Tent: I was just concerned with the safety. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine: To the best of your knowledge we don't have any of this type of
operation in Livonia at this time?
Mr. Whitehead: Not that I know of.
Mr. LaPine: If a fire did start there, what do you use to fight it water or
foam:
Mr. Whitehead: If it is a small spill, it could be fought with C,0 or dry chem.
With a large spill, it could be fought with a water fog but that is
a judgment call by the officer on the scene because the more water
you add the faster you are going to warm the product and create
more vapors and the more vapors, there is a possibility of more
fire or larger explosion. It is a delicate balance by the
commander on the scene and his judgment call. If it is a
controlled burn, he may very well let it burn.
Mr. LaPine: Would the fumes that would come from that be dangerous?
Could they kill a person?
Mr. Whitehead: No they are not toxic. However, if it was in a confined space, it
would replace the oxygen and you could suffocate but being outside
we wouldn't have that as a concern.
12839
Mrs. Fandrei? Rockney, there is no possibility when this gets into the air, that
it could affect life in the area?
Mr. Whitehead: Not that I know of.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to overreact either and I am willing to rely
completely on your expertise and I can support this proposal but I
would be curious to know what risks there are in an installation
like this for instances of sabotage or somebody that is intent on
creating a problem there. If someone were to shoot a bullet
through that tank, would that cause an explosion or a leak?
Mr. Whitehead: It would probably cause a leak. I think we were apprised of the
Detroit facility and an issue was raised what if someone would fire
a round through the tank, and we were satisfied it would probably
be a leak rather than an explosion.
Mr. Engebretson: Well stranger things have happened. I am glad to hear you say
that.
Mr. Whitehead: The site in Detroit, as would be this site I am sure, would be
afforded some type of protection against vandalism. I would look
for a disgruntled, fired employee looking to do something rather
than sabotage or possibly kids. That is why I called for lighting
during night time hours in addition to the fencing.
Mr. Morrow: I know we have a number of propane tanks around town. How would
this tank compare to propane as far as we just talked about? Would
that be more dangerous?
``► Mr. Whitehead: We don't look at this as being any more hazardous as the propane
with the safety factors built in. Probably the most unique thing
is the wide range of the flammable limits of the product itself.
It is much wider than gasoline but it takes a hotter temperature to
ignite it. On the plus side is they disburse so quickly that an
accidental ignition is remote.
Mrs. Fandrei: This is behind the building and behind where most of the traffic
and people would be seeing it during the day. So you think this
fencing and lighting would be adequate security?
Mr. Whitehead: I don't know what is adequate. I know lighting an area discourages
vandalism and I know so does fencing if it is high enough.
Mrs. Fandrei: How high did you recommend?
Mr. Whitehead: Ten feet.
Mrs. Fandrei: So we are recommending a ten-foot fence.
Mr. Oprisiu: We are not going to try something we cannot do.
Mr. Whitehead: It was discussed about a rear entry to the facility. I neglected
to put that in the letter. Many times when the department responds
to a hazardous incident, they need to consider wind direction so
�.. they have the option of coming in two different directions. That
would be advantageous to us.
12840
Mr. Engebretson: We are going to put that in the resolution. We will absolutely
cover that point.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-108-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-5-8-5 by Borg Warner Automotive, Powdered
Metals Corp. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.53
of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to locate two
temporary tube trailers and construct a permanent storage tank structure
for the containment of hydrogen and nitrogen gases on the property at
32059 Schoolcraft Road in Section 27, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/4/93 by Borg Warner
Automotive, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the above ground storage tank system conforms to NFPA #50B,
Liquefied Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites, in its entirety as a
"minimum" standard;
3) That a central station alarm system for leak detection and lighting
to illuminate the system at all hours during times of darkness be
installed to the satisfaction of the City's Department of Public
Safety, Division of Fire, prior to the issuance of an appropriate
permit.
4) That a ten (10) foot fence shall be installed around the area.
solo. 5) That all deficiencies as set forth in the letter dated May 18, 1993
from the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the Inspection
Department shall be corrected.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Vital Signs, on behalf of Century 21 Chalet, requesting
approval to erect one ground sign for the property located at 33607
Seven Mile Road in Section 9.
Mr. Miller: This is the Stamford Plaza Shopping Center. It is located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road just west of Farmington Road. They
are requesting a ground sign that would be 21 square feet
identifying one of the tenants in the shopping center, Century 21,
which is located in the last unit of the building towards Seven
Mile Road. The site already has a business center ground sign.
They are only allowed one business center ground sign. A shopping
center is not allowed to identify within the ground sign a tenant
of the shopping center so this is a non-conforming sign and they
would have to go to the ZBA to get a variance.
Mr. Engebretson: Any correspondence Mr. Nagy?
12841
Mr. Nagy: Only that the Inspection Department has advised us an application
for appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals has been filed and no
date for that hearing has been established as of receipt of this
letter.
`w Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Mike Nagle: I work for Vital Signs and am representing Century 21. This is
what the Council has come up with a recommendation that we go for
relief from the Zoning Board to get this sign approved. We had to
take the previous pole sign down to get our wall sign put up.
Mr. Engebretson: You traded a pole sign for a wall sign. Now you want to add a
monument sign.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-109-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Sign Permit
Application by Vital Signs, on behalf of Century 21 Chalet, requesting
approval to erect one ground sign for the property located at 33607
Seven Mile Road in Section 9 for the following reasons:
1) That this applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.50H of
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That this applicant has failed to justify the need for the
excessive amount of sign area at this location over what is
permitted by the sign ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc. requesting approval to reface
one ground sign for the property located at 29220 Seven Mile Road in
Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This is the Big Boy Restaurant that is located on Middlebelt Road
and Seven Mile Road. The Commission should be familiar with the
site. They previously added parking to the restaurant. Now they
are requesting to utilize the existing ground sign that was there
for the health club, which was torn down for the parking lot. They
would like to put up a "Big Boy" sign, 30 square feet. The problem
is there is already an existing ground sign for the Big Boy
Restaurant and there is deficient setback for this ground sign so
they would also have to get a variance from the Zoning Board.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, just for the sake of clarity, this is an additional
parcel facing another street that was acquired by the owner of this
restaurant. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
`fir.
12842
Mr. Engebretson: Now it is going to be combined into one parcel and they are
asking for this additional sign so the customers coming down Seven
Mile Road would recognize their entrance and their parking there
even though the restaurant is actually on Middlebelt?
`. Mr. Miller: Right, because there is a bank there and Toys R' Us so this would
be to identify the parking area.
Mr. Engebretson: It is quite different from the case we just heard.
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy have we received any correspondence on this matter.
Mr. Nagy: Yes we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division advising us that the property owner has filed an appeal
with the Zoning Board to allow them to keep this sign. No date for
that hearing has been established as of the date of this letter.
Mr. Engebretson: If the petitioner has nothing to add, then a motion would be in
order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-110-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc.
requesting approval to reface one ground sign for the property located
at 29220 Seven Mile Road in Section 1, be approved subject to the
previously approved site plan under Petition 92-6-2-21 and to the
"r► following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package received by the Livonia Planning Commission
on 4/28/93 by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: I am going to support this proposal because even though he has to
go to the ZBA, I feel they are replacing one sign with another
sign. They are not really adding a sign. If he was adding more
signs and they didn't comply, I would certainly vote against it.
Mr. Morrow: To enlarge on what Mr. Tent said, I think this site was also
enlarged by acquisition of this property to relieve a parking
problem they had on this site and that relieved some of the
concerns the City had.
Mr. Engebretson: It is quite a unique situation.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12843
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Metro-Detroit Sign Company, on behalf of Boston Chicken,
requesting approval for two wall signs for the building located at 37104
Six Mile Road in Section 8.
Mr. Miller: This is located in the Laurel Commons Shopping Center, which is at
Six Mile Road between Levan and Newburgh. This is the end unit. of
that shopping center, which faces Six Mile Road. They have an
existing wall sign on their building and they would like to replace
that sign and add another sign because the parent company has
changed the logo of their signage. They are allowed one sign at 42
square feet. They are asking for two signs each at 42 square feet
so they will have to get a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Walter Finnenger, 3608 Cedar Lane, Dallas, Texas: I would like permission to set
up a projector and show some slides. (He showed slides pointing
out the hardship they were facing with the lack of visibility they
have with the one sign)
Mr. Tent: I am familiar with that location and you do have one sign and that
is the existing sign. How would you feel about relocating that
existing sign with your new logo on the westerly portion of the
building. Now they will be able to see it and you will comply with
the ordinance. Instead of having the two because what you
explained is true. Where the sign is now, it is probably on the
wrong face but if you were to relocate that sign to the westerly
portion of the building, I think that would serve its purpose and
`'► you would be complying with the ordinance.
Mr. Finnenger: In normal cases that might be true. Why we do site analysis and
reports like this, any traffic moving westbound would not see that
sign so we would be back in the same position. Either way you are
going you are in a Catch 22.
Mr. Tent: But you are in a better position on the westerly side and then you
are complying with the ordinance.
Mr. Finnenger: I understand.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with my fellow Commissioner. I feel you should relocate
that sign. Not one single tenant in that strip has a better view
than Boston Chicken. Every single tenant in there would have to
have traffic right in front of the strip before their shop would be
noticed. The signs on the other shops are smaller. They are
further back and they are directly facing west. You would at least
have this one facing southwest and west. The sign on there right
now, as you are traveling west, isn't seen well because of the
trees so that sign isn't doing you any good unless you are right in
front of the building.
12844
Mr. Finnenger: I am not trying to be argumentative. My profession is doing site
analysis for customers like Boston Chicken and traveling westbound
you would not see that sign, at least in time to make that turn,
and that sign that is currently sitting on that building does serve
a purpose to identify the traffic flow that is traveling westbound
on Six Mile. It is like so many things. A tenant like Boston
Chicken picks a corner site, pays the additional rent for a corner
site and the landlord rents to someone like Boston Chicken all for
the same thing, and that is to bring traffic flow into the center.
Boston Chicken desires that type of visibility because they need
high traffic volumes to make for a successful business and the
other tenants desire tenants like Boston Chicken to pull traffic
into the center for them to be noticed, so it is a mutual
relationship. Boston Chicken does feel that this is vital to its
business. I hope that you can see the sincerity that they have in
this request and hopefully this board could see to it to eliminate
one barrier that business seems to be being placed on day by day
and that is signage. It does determine the success of a business
or can help it tremendously.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with you 100%. Coming from the east going west this
establishment is hard to see. You have to be realistic. No matter
where you place a sign there is some traffic coming from some way
where your signs can be seen. You can't be seen from all
directions. So we have to do a little compromising here and I
think the best compromise is to have the one sign. I disagree with
you and I disagree with a lot of people on signs. A sign per se
doesn't make or break a business. All the sign does is give a
person who is looking for your establishment where it is at. Your
business will either fail or be successful on the service you give,
`'�► the prices you charge and how good your product is. From what I
can see, the Chairman and I were out there Sunday afternoon, you
couldn't get in the place. I have to believe at this point they
are successful, contrary to what you told us at the study session
that this store is not doing as well as the parent company wants it
to. I don't know of any corporation, if they were making a hundred
million dollars a year, they felt they weren't making enough, they
wanted to make two hundred million dollars. I am all for that but
the fact still remains, you have to be realistic. You can't get
signage that is going to please everybody. You can't get signage
that is going to be seen from all locations. I want to help you.
This Commission wants to help. We want you to be the most
successful. We hope you open some more locations in Livonia but I
really believe we can eliminate the one sign and move it over and
that is going to solve a lot of your problems.
Mr. Finnenger: In response to your questions. I know signs aren't the end all to
business success. First of all you have to have a concept. Boston
Chicken has that and they are successful. Number two, is site
location. That is more important generally than signs. Sometimes
signs can make up for a poor site selection. Number three is
signage and in all restaurant businesses, more with the successful
chains, signage will run as high as the third most expensive item
for that restaurant. Someone like Boston Chicken will spend
12845
$30,000 to $40,000 on signage. Companies like McDonalds will have
no less than 9 separate signs on each building they put in. These
things are very important to each of these retailers. Boston
Chicken feels the addition of that sign, if it means 10% increase
in business, can prove in the long term to the success or failure
`4111. of that site. It doesn't mean they want to move their site out of
Livonia. Obviously Livonia has the demographics they want or they
wouldn't be here. There are alternatives to moving to different
sites and those things do occur. I would hate to see that but this
is their attempt to spend $4,000 to $5,000 to correct a problem
they see.
Mr. Morrow: Were you involved with the original placement of that sign?
Mr. Finnenger: No sir.
Mr. Morrow: If you were involved and had a choice of the two walls, which one
would you put it on to begin with?
Mr. Finnenger: I guess the western wall. That is the primary location.
Mr. Morrow: I think we are saying we have a hardship because we have a sign
that is improperly placed. The sign that is up there now is going
to have to come down one way or another because of the corporate
logo. As one Commissioner, and I think I indicated this at the
study meeting, it is not our job to determine hardship. Ours is to
enforce the ordinance. It calls for one wall sign. We know people
do have hardships but you are saying you have a hardship based on
signage that we agree is not in the right location to begin with.
My view is put the sign up in the appropriate place and see what
`rr that does for them and then maybe you could come back and maybe
have hardship and go to the ZBA on that.
Mr. Finnenger: I would like a little more clarification on that. One thing I
would like to add is that where I feel the hardship is, is in
location. Where they go into corner locations, they typically have
signs on both sides. The hardship is not having the second sign.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I can make is unless they have changed hands it
was the same people that made the initial decision to go in there
with one sign. We can't grant you permission to put that sign up.
The best we can do is say it is okay with us but the ZBA has to
grant it. Normally it is their job to determine hardship and
normally we don't like to go against our ordinance unless there is
a lot of overriding circumstances as in the prior petition.
Mr. Finnenger: That is why I had hoped this slide presentation would help you to
show the hardship.
Mr. Engebretson: You have asked us to understand your sincerity and we want to
assure you that we do. You have mentioned correcting a problem and
correcting a barrier to business. We have some disagreement on
that. Mr. LaPine and I were there Sunday afternoon at 4:20 p.m. ,
not exactly lunch time and not exactly dinner time, and if you were
12846
any more successful there, your biggest problem would be to get the
next business location to accommodate the people. There was no
room. The people were lined up to the door. I happen to like that
product. I go there from time to time and it is always busy, but I
don't think a sign is going to make or break that business.
Mr. Finnenger: I agree with you. It is not going to make or break the business.
Mr. Engebretson: I want you to know that the original proposal was for exactly
this configuration of signs but because it didn't meet the
ordinance, they chose to have one sign and to put it in the
location where it exists, with the full understanding they were
going to come back and seek this relief in the future. Not to
correct a problem but to get what they originally wanted. Your
presentation, to be very direct with you, was not very convincing.
Not because it wasn't very good. The thing that we have going for
us is that we live here, we drive by there regularly and we make it
our business in cases where there is an active petition like this
to go there and actively investigate the situation, and Bill and I
drove that from multiple different angles several times and we
agreed that coming westbound on Six Mile, for the most part, if you
are not well acquainted with where that place is, you might see the
sign about the time you are getting ready to pass the entrance. I
don't think you will add any disadvantages having that sign on the
westerly wall if that is where you choose to put it because you
have as much chance of seeing it there as where it is. On the
other hand, coming eastbound on Six Mile Road, the sign is not very
effective right now unless you know where you are going. I suspect
that most people that go in that place know where they are going.
Boston Chicken has a very effective advertising campaign in this
area with television, coupons, etc. Once you go in and find out
what the product is all about and the service, etc. , you will go
back even if they don't have a sign.
Mr. Finnenger: I understand there are unique businesses that people drive 30 miles
to go to have spaghetti, etc. but if you look at most national
retail concepts, including Boston Chicken, at this point their
buildings are signs. McDonald's building is a sign. Taco Bell's
building is a sign. If you drive to Plymouth you will see a
prototypical Boston Chicken store. You will know this is a Boston
Chicken store even if it doesn't have a sign on it. This store
doesn't have that. They are a national chain that depends on
identify and they are trying to make their identity more effective
at this site.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to make the point that is a real good operation. They are
going to be successful with or without all these signs. They are
successful. There are some people that would like to have
searchlights, etc. but we have to draw the line somewhere. That is
what we have an ordinance for. Our purpose is not to give you a
hard time. We want your client to be successful.
Mr. Finneger: I really do understand. I have been doing this 15 years. I do
understand your desires and the public's desires and I just want to
12847
make the point we all know Boston Chicken is going to be
successful. It is just our desire for them to be as successful as
they can potentially be and they feel their potential is greater
than it is currently.
`om. Mr. McCann: Normally I wait until all of this is done but you made some strong
points there that I was going to allude to and I am going to
revisit them because I think he has a valid point. There is a big
difference between putting this here and putting in a McDonalds.
As you go by Seven Mile you see Taco Bells at Farmington. You see
that building a mile away before you drive up. If they are not
successful here, they are going to look for a spot for a single
building, which is a billboard itself. Every McDonalds you go by,
my son who is 2 years old sees the arch up there and he knows it is
McDonalds. What he has here, he is putting it in a mall. I would
rather see it successful there than come out and be a separate
building somewhere else. He doesn't have the visibility because he
is not a sole site by himself. He doesn't have the ability to have
as many signs because he is only one in the chain there. That in
itself would give us some credibility to allow him to expand it a
little bit. In addition, everyone said here tonight no matter what
you do you can't see the signs anyway. If you are driving
eastbound, you have to wait until you get on the other side. If
you are going westbound you can't see it until you get to 50 feet.
It is not our typical situation where you are driving down the road
and you can't stand seeing all the signs. This location is fairy
hidden. Everyone agrees that the signs are fairly hidden. By
giving him an extra sign here, it is going to make possibly the
difference between keeping the national chain in the strip mall and
helping the strip mall versus making him go out and find a location
"'rw where they can be the sole site. I like to abide by the sign
ordinance as much as possible but I don't think we would be varying
it that much in this instance.
Mr. Tent: We wouldn't have approved a McDonalds at this location because this
isn't a spot for McDonalds nor would this be a spot for Rallys
because this is a neighborhood location and the people that came in
here came in to play by the rules. While I respect what you say,
if they wanted to have something that big like a McDonalds they
would have to get into a different location. This is a successful
operation now so they are finding it no matter where the sign is.
My original request is to ask Mr. Nagy or H, in this particular
case if the gentleman here was to relocate the sign to the westerly
location, would he have to come before us or could he do that under
the existing ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: No, he would not be able to. That is the reason why earlier
tonight we had the language amendment that we did that ended up
being tabled. It is to allow for administrative decisions such as
taking that sign from one side of the building and putting it on
the other side. Right now he can't do that.
Mr. Tent: Under this setup now he would have to come back.
Mr. Nagy: It would be a different petition.
12848
Mr. Tent: I would like to see that sign on the westerly portion. I would
like to save him as much time as possible but with that being the
case then he would have to come back.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Sign Company,
on behalf of Boston Chicken, requesting approval for two wall signs for
the building located at 37104 Six Mile Road in Section 8, be denied for
the following reasons:
1) That this applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.50H of Zoning
Ordinance ##543;
2) That this applicant has failed to justify the need for the excessive
amount of sign area at this location over what is permitted by the sign
ordinance.
Mr. McCann: If we approved in part and denied in part, which you may not know
if the company wants to do it, we could approve the westerly most
sign and deny the southeasterly sign. Would you rather have that
tonight than total denial and have to come back?
Mr. Finnenger: I cannot answer that. I have not had a discussion with the
officers of the company.
Mr. McCann: I am just trying to keep you from having to refile and start over
again or you could appeal it to the City Council. Would you rather
have it tabled because it doesn't look like you have your four
`41111. votes you need.
Mr. Morrow: If we approve in part and deny in part, that means you are
complying with the ordinance. It was your intent to appeal this
anyways to the Zoning Board. My view would be you would probably
just as soon have it approved in part and denied in part because
you are not any worse off. At least you can now appeal our
decision. You are going to appeal anyways. Mr. Nagy would you
concur with that?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann withdrew his support for the denying resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-111-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Sign
Company, on behalf of Boston Chicken, requesting approval for two wall
signs for the building located at 37104 Six Mile Road in Section 8, be
approved for the westerly sign, identified as Elevation A on the sign
plan, and denied for the southeasterly sign, identified as Elevation B
on the sign plan, subject to the following condition :
12849
1) That the sign identified as Elevation A on Sheet 1 of the Sign Plan
dated 2/16/93 by Chandler Signs, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
'Now Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Marygrove Awning Company, on behalf of Asia's Family Hair
Salon, requesting approval for an awning sign for the building located
at 28905 Plymouth Road in Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Garden
Avenue and Harrison Road. It is a party store right now and has a
ground sign identifying the party store. They are also proposing
to put an awning type of signage on their building. It would say
"Asia's" on one part of the awning and "Family Hair Salon" on the
other. They are allowed 20 square feet of signage. The signage
they are proposing is 36 square feet so they would have to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Kim Delaney: I am with Marygrove Awning Company. They are an individual
business from the party store that they are adjoined to. They have
no signage right now on or around that building. They are
partially blocked from the east by an additional building that
protrudes out further. They are very hard to see at all traveling
westbound on Plymouth Road. They do not have any signs on the
building right now. They do have their own individual address on
that part of the building. They do have their own address and have
\lor applied for and obtained their permit to occupy that part of the
building.
Mr. Engebretson: They are not in there yet.
Ms. Delaney: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: You are the sign person. What would it take to comply with the
ordinance? What is the hardship where you couldn't comply with the
sign ordinance which we have just established?
Ms. Delaney: The party store that exists there now went in front of the sign
board to get the ground sign they have there now approved. I was
told any signage at all added to this building, even with an
individual address, they would have to obtain a separate permit and
come in front of you.
Mr. Tent: Then you have to go to the ZBA because you are not complying with
our ordinance. Could you comply by building a sign within our
ordinance?
12850
Ms. Delaney: Where their business is located on that particular building, being
that it is blocked totally from the east and they are set so far
back from Plymouth Road, we felt it necessary to increase their
signage so they would be more visible for any traffic traveling on
Plymouth Road.
Mr. Tent: Where are you increasing the signage in depth or length? Where
aren't you complying with the ordinance?
Ms. Delaney: Instead of taking that as two individual portions of signage, I
believe they took it as one continuous sign and that is why it
exceeds the amount.
Mr. Miller: We took the letters and added the total.
Mr. Tent: Is there any way you can comply with the 16 square feet?
Ms. Delaney: I believe we could attempt to do that I just feel in order for them
to get their point across and in incorporating her name in there,
it would be rather small for an area where it is located.
Mr. Tent: Thank you because I am a stickler for the sign ordinance.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#5-112-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Marygrove Awning Company,
on behalf of Asia's Family Hair Salon, requesting approval for an awning
sign for the building located at 28905 Plymouth Road in Section 36, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
4r.
1) That the Sign Package received by the City of Livonia Planning
Commission on 4/30/93 by Marygrove Awning Company, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance
by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote no against this proposal although it is a sign
that is needed there but this applicant has failed to comply with
Section 18.50H of Zoning Ordinance #543 and has failed to justify
the need for the excessive amount of sign area at this location
over what is permitted by the sign ordinance.
Mr. Morrow: Did the representative of the petitioner indicate that they would
try to cope with a reduction in the size of the sign.
Mr. Engebretson: She did but it wasn't pursued.
Mr. Morrow: Are you under any type of constraint time wise? Would it be
possible for us to table this, if the Commission so desires, for
you to come back to us and say yes we can reduce the sign or not.
It is just not practical and then you go on to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Normally it is timing. I don't know how soon they want
to get this sign up. How soon they will be opening up.
ti..
12851
Ms. Delaney: I believe she is going to apply for some temporary signage there
being that this is going to take some time. We did an original
drawing with it being within the signage amount that is allowed.
It just looked so small. That is why we increased it to what we
did.
slow
Mr. Morrow: So it has been considered?
Ms. Delaney: It has been considered. She needs some signage whether it is on
the awning or on her building. If we are put in a position, we can
reduce the signage amount.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to explore that.
A motion was made by Mr. Tent to table this petition, which motion failed for lack
of support.
Mrs. Fandrei: I just wonder if you could do without the phone number on there
because that would probably bring it down to where it should be.
I don't like to see phone numbers on signs anyways. I think it
detracts from the appearance of the sign.
Ms. Delaney: This particular type of business, being that it is a beauty salon,
I know even myself if I want to get my nails done and I am driving
by I will write it down or I will call from my car phone. If it is
really going to make that big of a difference, perhaps we can
locate that somewhere in the window.
Mrs. Fandrei: It really does detract from the overall look. If someone sees the
name, they are going to look it up.
`rrr.
Mr. Nagy: It would be reduced by four square feet.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann would you please call the vote for the approving
resolution.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, Lapine, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Belle Isle Awning Company, on behalf of Pet Supplies
Plus, requesting approval for two awning signs for the building located
at 29489 Seven Mile Road in Section 11.
Mr. Miller: This is located in the Mid-Seven Shopping Center, which is on the
corner of Middlebelt and Seven Mile Road, across the street from
the Livonia Mall. It is the end unit towards Seven Mile which is
the old location of the Waterbed Gallery Store. They are proposing
12852
an awning type of signage, since it is a corner unit it would go
around the corner on both sides of the building. They are allowed
90 square feet of signage. They are asking for 87 square feet of
signage on each awning so you are talking 174 square feet of
signage. Because it doesn't conform with the ordinance they have
`r► to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Harvey Solway, Pets Supplies "Plus", 37720 Amrhein, Livonia: In light of the
lateness of the hour I am going to confine my comments to events
that have transpired since the study session of last week. First
you will note that we have revised our application in accordance
with Ms. Fandrei's suggestion. This awning is now known by our
store design staff as the "Fandrei Awning". We opened two stores
last week and both had awnings. One was in Des Plains, Illinois.
If you ever get in Chicago, it is just outside of where the airport
is. At that store we had an awning that ran about 100 feet across
the front. The Mayor of Des Plains called our franchisee to
commend him on this awning. I asked our franchisee here if it
wouldn't be too much trouble perhaps the Mayor would write a
letter but unfortunately I couldn't get it here in time. The other
point that I would like to make is this store is our flagship
store. Our corporate offices are here in Livonia. The store is
here in Livonia. As I said last week we have been fortunate and we
are expanding very rapidly. Everybody that is part of our
organization will see this store. It is a very important thing to
us. We are treating this accordingly. All that remains is for me
to address any questions any of you might have.
Mrs. Fandrei: I appreciate your coming up with your alternate plan. As I drove
the area all week and looked at the color scheme, the green
definitely will fit in much better and we really do appreciate it.
Mr. LaPine: I have a problem. When I was out there to look at your sign, as
you know the outside of that center, the whole center is designed
the same way. Are you going to be taking off that facing or will
that canopy be covering the facing that is there now?
Mr. Solway: The scallop effect will be covered by the awning.
Mr. LaPine: You will not be taking down what is underneath there?
Mr. Solway: No sir. The awning will cover what is there.
Mr. Barrett: From the underside of the awning it is called an egg crate. You
won't be able to look up under the awning and see the old soffit.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you know if anyone else in that strip has seen what your plan is
for this awning?
Mr. Solway: Not through us.
Mr. Tent: John, when we talk about excessive wall signage, is that because
Pets Supplies "Plus" is on one side and Pets Supplies "Plus" is on
the other side? Is this what we call excessive.
12853
Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Excessive both in terms of number, they are
allowed one, and excessive in terms of area, they are allowed 90
square feet.
Mr. Tent: So this becomes different than the chicken place we were talking
N`' about earlier. What I am trying to say is Boston Chicken, the way
the building was positioned, they could have the westerly sign. In
this particular case, if you had one, you couldn't see the other.
To me it is a different situation.
Mr. Nagy: Just because you have a corner location, they still are only
allowed one wall sign. I think the comparison to Boston Chicken is
applicable. They want two signs and are only allowed one and they
are in excess of almost twice of what they are allowed.
Mr. Solway: The size of our space is approximately four times the size of
Boston Chicken.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add to Mr. LaPine's comments. I didn't measure
the variation in the offsets that soffit has on the Seven Mile side
but it looked to be quite extreme. That is why we were wondering
whether that canopy would cover the whole thing.
Mr. Solway: We have been advised by the awning people that the whole thing
could be covered up.
Mr. Engebretson: That bothers me. I understand that while that is not intended
to be argumentative, it is not what was said earlier that it will
just simply wrap around the soffit.
4r• Mr. Solway: I think the point Mr. Barrett was trying to make is what we are
looking for is a totally professionally installed visually
appealing product. If this scallop in the building is a problem,
then in that instance it will be removed so what remains is
something that is aesthetically pleasing. If we have been advised
we don't have to modify the building, then we would seek not to do
that.
Mr. Engebretson: Aesthetically pleasing is something that there is a lot of debate
on.
Mr. Solway: I urge you to consult the Mayor at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe your offer to change this from what was a really loud
yellow to green was good but I have to tell you these awnings, in
themselves, in my judgment, are signs that just scream out for
attention and we talked earlier about the fact that shopping center
has been in a certain amount of distress in recent years but there
is nothing fundamentally wrong with the appearance of that shopping
center. I think what is going to happen with this awning at that
corner of the building, I think while you are looking for an
aesthetically pleasing corporate image, what is the rest of the
shopping center going to look like by contrast? Sweden House on
one side with a standard type of sign and now here is this really
12854
highly visible awning. I am just personally thinking that the
awning becomes a sign and you have asked for something that is
significantly in excess of what is permitted. I like the idea that
you are going in there. I would just think there is a better way
of signing that building.
Mr. Solway: There is no way to sign the building and accomplish the exterior
renovations that we are seeking to accomplish. The only product
that we discovered that accomplished both objectives are these
awnings.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#5-113-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Belle Isle Awning company,
on behalf of Pet Supplies Plus, requesting approval for two awning signs
for the building located at 29489 Seven Mile Road in Section 11, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package received by the City of Livonia Planning
Commission on 5/14/93 by Belle Isle Awning Company, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
2) That any interior window signage be limited to 20% of the total
glass area of this business unit;
3) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against this proposal. I would like to see it
`r✓� tailored down. I think the Chairman made some good observations.
To me it is too big. I am worried about the rest of the site as to
what it will look like. To me it is big. It is large. I am a
little concerned about. It doesn't meet the ordinance, which I
like to adhere to.
Mr. Morrow: That shopping center has floundered for a number of years and to
have a Livonia based company come forward and extract from the
landlord any improvements of that particular subdivision, it is my
fondest wish that subdivision would be refurbished or revitalized
and flourish. Although I am not over enamored with doubling the
signs, there are some overriding circumstances and it caused me to
offer this approving resolution subject to demonstrating a hardship
to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: Just so you understand where I am coming from, I agree with all
you say but I have to be concerned about what this is going to do
on a negative basis as well, but I want this Livonia company to be
successful.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: Tent, Engebretson
ABSENT: Alanskas
12855
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
Iresolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Great Lakes Electrical, on behalf of Jo-Ann Fabrics,
`tow) requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 29514
Seven Mile Road in Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This unit is located in the Livonia Mall. It is the old location
of the Baby World N' Teens unit. They are proposing to install a
114 square foot wall sign. Because the sign that is already on the
wall is in excess of what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, they
will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. The
sign is already up. It has been up for about a year. Because they
needed an electrical permit the City found out it was already up.
Todd Farnum: I am with Great Lakes Electrical. There was an existing sign up
there and this is basically just a replacement. We were wondering
why there would be a disapproval because there was an existing sign
there. JoAnn Fabrics had previously rented a space in the mall.
This is basically just removing it from the front of the mall from
their old location to the rear of the mall, which is their new
location. With the problems the store has had, this is in such an
area that doesn't stand out and they want people that knew JoAnn
Fabrics was in the mall previously, without signs they might think
they are no longer there.
Mr. LaPine: How long has JoAnn Fabrics been in Livonia Mall?
Mr. Farnum: I have been working for this company for six years and that sign
"44.1. has always been up.
Mr. LaPine: They have been there for approximately six years so the sign was in
the old location five years. Is this the same sign as was on the
old store?
Mr. Farnum: Yes it is. We just changed the coloring of the letters.
Mr. LaPine: When I went out there to look at this, it looked like the letters
were bolted to the face of the building.
Mr. Farnum: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The sign at the new location is, in my opinion, you did a good job
of keeping that sign because it looks like a brand new sign.
Mr. Farnum: We resurfaced the sign.
Mr. LaPine: In reality it isn't the same sign. I am not opposed to the sign
but in reality we didn't move this sign to a new location. You
renovated the sign so to me it is a brand new sign.
Mr. Farnum: I guess if you look at it that way.
12856
Mr. LaPine: We were told last week all they did was take this sign and move it
from one location to another location. If that was true you would
have had the individual letters. The transformer would have been
inside the letters. That sure looks like a brand new sign to me.
` s. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#5-114-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Great Lakes Electrical, on
behalf of Jo-Ann Fabrics, requesting approval for one wall sign for the
building located at 29514 Seven Mile Road in Section 2, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package received by the City of Livonia Planning
Commission on 4/30/93 by Great Lake Electrical, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance
by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against the request because it does not comply
with the zoning ordinance.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
`aw resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 664th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on May 18, 1993 was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
(----- j/j0 ' L
,Tames C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: ' L Y!`&1/Ae r
Ja Engebreson, Chairman J
jg