HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-01-11 13170
MINUTES OF THE 676th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
``.
On Tuesday, January 11, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 676th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 65 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Members absent: Jack Engebretson Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner
has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the
petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by
the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or
not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
93-10-1 -15 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #688-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers and Angling in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 1 from OS, P, and RUF 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.
Mr. Tent: To the staff, who owns this property?
Mr. Nagy: It is owned in private. The property is owned by Mr. Corsi. The
owner of the Corsi Restaurant also owns this property.
Mr. Morrow: This petition is by the City Planning Commission so we will go
directly to the audience to see if there is anyone present wishing
to speak on this item.
13171
Brad Berger, 19331 Lathers: I would like to know whether this has been brought in
front of the DNR. Has the DNR already approved this?
Mr. Morrow: It would be my supposition, because it is a matter of zoning with
no development at this time, that any DNR or anything along that
14ft. line would be addressed at the time of development. It would also
he my guess that they would not be able to encroach upon the lands
in the flood plain.
Mr. Berger: Because that definitely is directly in the flood plain.
Mr. Morrow: I think the petitioner to the right has a little piece that is also
in the flood plain and it was used as an open space.
Mr. Berger: In the City of Livonia how many acres do you have to have per
dwelling for condos?
Mr. Morrow: I am going to have to defer that question to the professional
staff.
Mr. Nagy: It depends on the bedroom composition of the dwelling unit. There
are different densities for one-bedroom, for two-bedroom or
three-bedroom. The minimum for a one-bedroom condominium is 4,350
square feet and then more additional site area for each additional
bedroom that the owner would have.
Mr. Berger: My concern is they are going to build in that flood plain.
Mr. Nagy: The flood plain is set aside and cannot be developed. While it is
part of the zoning proposal, whether it would be parking or RUF, it
is still flood plain and cannot be utilized. The only additional
with the RC zoning classification, they can take density credit for
developable portion of the property. They can use the flood plain
area to the extent of 25%.
Mr. Berger: So they could cram condos where it is now classified as office
space and use part of that flood plain for that density.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I think we can assure you tonight they will not be building on the
flood plain.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the present developer of the property adjacent to this,
he has petitioned us for condominiums. He indicated at one of our
study meetings that he was interested in this particular parcel.
Is there any action there on his part?
Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of. I know, as you pointed out, that he
expressed an interest in looking at this property if it were
rezoned to RC and perhaps that was why he is waiting to see what
happens.
Mr. LaPine: John, the developer to the east that we approved for condominiums,
to the best of your knowledge he is still going forward?
13172
Mr. Nagy: To the best of my knowledge yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-1-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#1-1-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-10-1-15 by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #688-93, proposing to rezone property
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers and Angling
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from OS, P, and RUF to RC, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 93-10-1-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of
residential facilities in the area to serve the community.
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension
of an existing zoning district adjacent on the east.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-1-17
by Seven Mile and Haggerty Assoc. (proponent) and Pentagon Properties
Limited Partnership (owner), requesting to rezone property located north
of Seven Mile Road and east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 6 from ML to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from J.R.F. Associates stating we are very
concerned as to the negative impact a rezoning of the above
captioned property will have on the property we own directly
adjacent to the parcel being considered for rezoning. Some of
our concerns include, but are not limited to, increased traffic,
ingress and egress as it effects our property, and the rezoning as
it may impact our tenants. It is our position that until such time
as our questions are answered and our concerns alleviated that we
oppose any rezoning of the subject property. This was signed by
Robert J. Crutcher, General Partner.
Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the petitioner:
13173
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I represent the petitioner, Seven
Mile and Haggerty Associates. This piece of property is
approximately 33 acres as the staff has indicated. The petitioner
would like to develop it in a commercial manner similar to the type
of development you have on Haggerty Road north of this piece of
property, namely the Target store and Source Club. They are not
planning a strip mall or strip shopping center. The users will all
be sizable users. It is a very desirable area. There are many
users out there that would like to be in this area. Nobody has
signed up obviously until the zoning takes place. This is just in
the talking stages as far as leasing or selling that property. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, I am looking at this. I am very concerned with this
section of the City also. It is the golden corridor of the City.
We have had this on the Master Plan for a long time. We have made
our desires known to a lot of developers. I recognize that times
do change and we should look at things in an intelligent manner.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. The petitioner before us
now, does he have an option on this property?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Tent: What are the terms of the option?
Mr. Tangora: The option was taken up back in early November. We filed the
petition for rezoning right after the option was signed.
Mr. Tent: Is there a clock running?
Mr. Tangora: Very definitely.
Mr. Tent: What is your bottom line?
Mr. Tangora: The bottom line is that, I am not absolutely certain but I
understand when we normally go into these type of deals we advise
our clients it will take about four months for the rezoning
process. I think they proceeded on that basis. Because of the
holidays, mainly in December when the boards and Council don't meet
as often as they normally do, we have been set back two months so
the clock is running and we are anxious to make a determination
before the option expires.
Mr. Tent: It doesn't have to be a hasty decision on our part? That is what I
want to know. In other words, do we all have time to work on this
to put in a quality development or is this something that has to be
done right now?
Mr. Tangora: As the Planning Commission knows, whatever action you take, either
approve or deny here tonight, we still have work to do at the
Council level so we still have several months of work with the City
to develop a quality development.
13174
Mr. Tent: We are a fact-finding Commission. We are trying to get everything
together so when it does go to Council we have what I, as one
Commissioner, would like to see in this area. It is not the idea
of hurrying it through. That is why I question the time factor. I
have another question. The present owner of the property, is he
going to divest himself of the ownership?
Mr. Tangora: That is what I understand. The Jonna Company will be out.
Mr. Tent: Do you have firm commitments on what you are proposing?
Mr. Tangora: Mr. Walkon can answer that.
Marvin Walkon, Telegraph Road, Southfield: Mr. Tent to answer your first question
as to the time required, we purchased this property under option
from the Jonna Company and like Chuck said we lost about a month
and a half. We do have very, very tight time constraints right
now. As to the type of tenants we are talking to, we are talking
to two large department stores. We are talking to two book stores.
We are also talking to the type of store, and I would use it
generically, like a Bed, Bath & Beyond type of store. These are
the type of tenants we are talking with. We have agreed with them
not to release the names of tenants right now for two reasons.
One, if it is in the newspaper right now, they are going to be in
trouble with their real estate department and I would be in serious
trouble. We, of course, do not have a lease. We have extremely
serious interest. As a matter of fact, they are calling us and the
Ward Church, as you know, in Northville and right now what I would
refer to as playing one against the other. To tell you a little
bit about the type of center we are talking about, these are going
to be only the large users. There are not going to be what I refer
to as "Mom and Pop" stores so it will not be in a historical
Livonia sense a "strip center". We are going to build, and I am
making this as a commitment, an all brick, let me repeat that so
there is no mistake later, all brick, heavily landscaped center,
something we can all be proud of one year or one and a half years
from now. Mr. Tent you know my style. It is not to give a promise
of Arpege and not deliver on it. This is going to be a center that
is aesthetically pleasing and the type of tenants that you are
going to see here are the quality tenants that you see in Troy and
West Bloomfield. This is not meant to be an Alfred Hitchcock
mystery as to the type of tenant. When I say book stores, you
probably don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure which are
the new book stores coming into this area. We have been asked and
we are going to keep the confidence of the tenants at this point.
We are in the middle stages of the rezoning process and if there
are any questions from people in the area or anyone else, Mr.
Nagy has my phone number and I will be pleased to meet with them.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions they have as long as
it is not betraying the confidence of the tenant. We enjoy being
part of the neighborhood.
rr..
13175
Mr. Tent: When I said I understood what is happening in the area, I
do realize Northville, which is on the other side of the road, a
lot of these people are playing one side against the other. I am
trying to get, as one Commissioner, the best we can get within the
confines of Livonia. That is why the statements you have made as
far as the records are concerned about the brick, etc. that can
come back to haunt you at some other date.
Mr. Walkon: I expect it to.
Mr. Alanskas: I think the question before us tonight is one thing. The property
right now is ML. Should it stay ML in accordance with the Land Use
Plan or should we say things have been changing, they are going to
continue to change for the property, is it proper to be C-2? We
now have C-2 right behind this property. We have C-2 to the north
of it. We have C-2 to the south of it and now with Northville we
are going to have C-2 across the street. The question is, is it
proper to have these 33 acres C-2? I, as one Commissioner, think
it is proper for C-2 providing certain things. Number one Mr.
Walkon, what about traffic on Haggerty Road? It is a big concern.
Mr. Walkon: It is a big concern of ours. We have commissioned a traffic study.
We expect to have it any day now and we will supply it to you. The
name of the company doing the study is Reid, Cool & Michalski and
they are in the process of doing the study right now.
Mr. Alanskas: Too bad you didn't have it this evening because we are meeting with
Northville Twp. in approximately two weeks, because that corridor
from Eight Mile and Haggerty down to Seven Mile and Haggerty, there
is a lot of traffic and if you are going to be putting in four or
five tenants. How many is it you plan for that area?
Mr. Walkon: Four to five and that is a guess.
Mr. Alanskas: Not more than five?
Mr. Walkon: It depends. The department store is saying 80,000 square feet. It
will change the numbers around a bit and that is what we are hoping
for.
Mr. Alanskas: I myself can see this going C-2 as long as we don't have a problem
with the traffic. There is a problem there right now. You are
going to have many, many people coming to these facilities. That
will be a big concern of mine. I think it is proper to go C-2 at
this time.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Walkon, you mentioned one thing alluding to what is going on
across the street. Although this is Livonia, we should get a
little insight as to what our neighbors to the west are doing. Do
you have anything you can shed on that? You mentioned some of your
potential clients were contacting the Ward Church property.
N..
13176
Mr. Walkon: I don't think it is appropriate for me to be the spokesperson. I
think the Planning Department would be better suited to answer the
question but where the Ward Church is, is being made into what I
refer to as a PUD. Part of that property will be residential and
part of that property will be commercial. My understanding is that
fiw about between 40 and 60 acres are going to be commercial. Our
position is that as far as traffic is concerned, the impact of
traffic will be much less where we are proposing the site than if
the site is in Northville at the Ward Church. It would be much,
much better for the City of Livonia and Livonia gets the jump on
the gun between us and the Northville property and that is
important for one main reason. There are all kinds of tenants and
we want the Cadillacs, we want the Lincolns. We really don't want
the Volkswagens so the faster we can move the better chance we have
at grabbing those Cadillacs and Lincolns.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, you said three or four times that you are looking at
two department stores. Can you give us your definition of what you
mean by department stores? Do you mean like Hudsons, Sears,
Montgomery Wards or Kmart?
Mr. Walkon: The two department stores are presently located in the area. They
are not in the nature of discount department stores. To tell you
much more than that would be to betray a confidence. I think I
know what you look for and look to. They are the type of
department stores that you can be proud of having in Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Is Kmart to you a discount store? I don't know what qualifies as
a department store. I grew up thinking Hudsons is a department
store.
'411u` Mr. Walkon: I would agree with you. Hudsons is a department store and that
is in my definition of the type of stores we are talking about. A
Hudson type generic.
Mr. Morrow: John, what is the size of the development of the Target and the
failed Source Club?
Mr. Nagy: The Target Store is approximately 110,000 square feet.
Mr. Morrow: How many acres do those two cover?
Mr. Nagy: In excess of 25 acres.
Mr. Morrow: This is 33 acres so it is comparable in size.
Mr. Nagy: Larger but comparable.
Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this petition.
Dan Murphy: I am Senior Vice President of Paine-Webber. Our office is at Seven
Mile and Haggerty. They bring up a good point. Yes things are
13177
changing in the area but Seven Mile and Haggerty, I think it is
important to have a traffic study because south of Seven Mile on
Haggerty there is a hill where the American Community Insurance is
and in the three years our office has been there, there probably
has been three to seven serious car accidents at Seven Mile and
'No, Haggerty because what happens it goes from two lanes to one lane as
you go north of Seven Mile. Cars come over that hill and cars
turning left try to make a left hand turn and they don't expect a
car and a car comes over that hill very quickly and there is an
accident. A lot of my employees come down at Eight Mile and
Haggerty and turn left on Seven Mile and the more traffic that is
there, I think that is the biggest issue. I would like to see more
business come to the City for our business but I think the traffic
is probably the biggest issue that has to be addressed. I also
come from Eight Mile and Haggerty and that is a concern.
Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy in response to what Mr. Murphy just said.
Mr. Nagy, this is only a zoning item at this particular time but
when we get involved with the site plan, if he is successful with
this petition, will we be able to go ahead and put a deceleration
lane there to accommodate problems? In other words, is that
something that can be borne by the petitioner as happened in other
instances in the City or is this something we would be involved
with?
Mr. Nagy: We will get involved during the site plan review process. Haggerty
Road is a borderline road between two communities and it is planned
to be a five-lane pavement just like it is north of the Haggerty
Tech Center. It will be widened. It will have a deceleration lane
that you refer to. Not only will those plans be reviewed by the
City of Livonia but also by the Wayne County Traffic Commission so
there will be other agencies that also will be involved in the
review process. It certainly will be part of the site plan review
process to see that there is adequate lane widening and
deceleration lanes to accommodate the increased traffic that will
likely be brought about by this petition.
Mr. Tent: We could circumvent this problem with that site if we draw
attention to what they are looking for.
Mr. Nagy: That is part of the planning process.
Pat Devlin, 15799 Southampton: I stand in support of this development. I think,
based on the fact of the jobs it will bring in the area, including
the construction jobs, I stand in support. I think we do have an
opportunity here to beat our fellow neighbor to the jump and we
should take that opportunity and go ahead and do that.
Mr. McCann: Are you involved in any way?
Mr. Devlin: Just a resident.
13178
Dave Lowes, 38229 Roycroft Ct. : I live right down the street from this project. I
am a carpenter that lives in the area. I worked on the Target
store and I appreciate going down there to work. I stand in
support of this development.
Jim Caris, 9399 Patton: I live in the forgotten southwest corner of our fair City.
I stand in support of this project. I think it will generate a lot
of construction jobs. I am a construction worker. I am concerned
about that. Hearing the gentleman's presentation about the type of
stores and facilities that are going to go in, and I travel around
a lot of the communities, if the development is such as the
gentleman talks about, I think Livonia should take advantage of the
situation and okay it and I am 100% for it.
Diane Bommarito, 19273 Glen Eagle: In stand in favor of the project from what has
been outlined here. I am concerned with the area. I was very
concerned when I heard about the Source Club situation. I think
the whole area would be enhanced by this project. From what I
heard tonight it sounds like the traffic will be there any way. It
sounds like a beautiful project and that is an area where I am all
the time so I look forward to it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#1-2-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1993 on Petition 93-11-1-17 by Seven Mile and Haggerty Assoc.
(proponent) and Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership (owner),
'tour requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road and east
of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from ML to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 93-11-1-17 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of
uses in the subject area to serve the community.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible with proposed uses
planned in the neighboring community to the west, Northville.
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. LaPine: I would like to make a substitute motion to table.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion died for lack of support.
Mr. Tent: The reason I made the proposal for approval is because I am
confident with what the developer is going to do. I have seen the
13179
things he has done in the area and he has made some pretty firm
commitments. I recognize this is just a zoning change and they
could dispose of the property any time they want to before they
take action on it but I am not afraid that will be done in this
`. particular case. They have a good reputation. They have gone on
record with the things they are going to do and I mentioned this
will come to haunt them if they renege on this. I feel this is
good and we should go forward and that is the reason why I made
this recommendation for approval.
Mr. LaPine: I want to speak in opposition based on a number of points. First,
we have a Master Plan. It took a lot of study and this land was
zoned ML for a reason. I think what is happening here, everyone is
panicking. The big deal is Northville is going to develop some
property. Because Northville is going to develop some property in
commercial zoning, that if we have an opportunity to get those
businesses over here we should scrap all our past plans and rezone
this property. Maybe it needs to be rezoned but I think personally
we are moving way too fast. We should postpone this thing at least
until we have our meeting with the Northville Planning Commission,
the joint meeting we have set up, and check out exactly what their
plans are. We can always come back. Just because the petitioner
feels he wants to be on a fast track, I don't think we should be on
a fast track. Whatever we do here we will be stuck with for the
rest of our days and there is no reason to panic just because the
petitioner feels he has to be on the fast track. Just because
there is a possibility they are going to get some development in
Northville, that doesn't mean we should rezone property on this
side of Haggerty Road to accommodate that. Maybe it should be
New rezoned but we shouldn't go into this without taking a little more
time to study it.
Mr. McCann: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine in many respects. I think I could
be persuaded with some development in there. As to how much and
what type, I think it needs further study but at this point it
doesn't appear there is enough for a tabling resolution_. I am just
not yet satisfied with it. I do want to see more work coming into
Livonia. I do want to see more jobs but Livonia was built over a
period of 40 years and because this project hasn't developed in the
last five years as expected doesn't mean it won't in the next five.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas
NAYS: LaPine, McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tangora: Mr. Chairman, since we are on somewhat of a fast track, we would
like to ask for a waiver of the seven-day rule.
13180
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#1-3-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
`„s. Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 93-11-1-17 by Seven Mile and Haggerty
Assoc. (proponent) and Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership
(owner), requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile
Road and east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6
from ML to C-2.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-1-18
by Wheeler & Sons Building Co. requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
vim. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60
feet) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
Further, it should be determined at this time the manner in which
Birch Run Avenue will be terminated east of the proposed rezoning
area (cul-de-sac) to determine if additional right-of-way will be
required from future Parcels "E" and "F". We have also received a
letter from Ronald Parz stating this rezoning petition has his
complete support. He states he is totally in favor of anything
that will improve Livonia.
Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please come forward.
John Wheeler, 16183 Winchester Dr. : We propose to rezone from RUF to R-1 for a lot
split development of single family homes to correspond with the
Hunters Pointe, the new subdivision there. They will be homes of
that quality.
Mr. Morrow: When you say a lot split do you have two separate parcels?
Mr. Wheeler: A street dead ends there. We are going to continue it through. My
understanding is the owner to the east is also up for a lot split.
Mr. Alanskas: You will have six lots with this lot split?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes.
13181
Mr. Alanskas: What will the size of the homes be in square footage?
Mr. Wheeler: About 1340 and 1700 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Will they be all brick?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes, all masonry brick.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-1-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
111-4-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-11-1-18 by Wheeler & Sons Building Co.
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF
to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 93-11-1-18 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an
existing zoning district in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a reasonable use of
two long narrow acreage parcels.
— FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
1543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-1-19
by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting to
rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway
and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P0, PO III
and C-4III to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
We also have a letter dated January 7, 1994 from the Windsor
Capital Group, Inc. This letter reads we have recently been
informed that the Planning Commission of the City of Livonia is
considering a rezoning request of a parcel of property north of
Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway located
13182
in the Victor Corporate Park. We are the owners of the Embassy
Suites Hotel located north of and directly adjacent to this
property. We have made an investment of over $26,000,000 in our
facility in anticipation of being part of a high quality corporate
`r.. office park development. We were repeatedly promised by
representatives of Victor Corporate Park that we would be
surrounded by high rise office facilities leased to tenants that
would be customers of our hotel and restaurant facilities. To date
all of these promises, commitments, and expectations remain
unfulfilled, Now we are being told that the developer wants to
change the zoning so that he may develop a low-rise warehouse-type
building for retail use. We are firmly and unalterably opposed to
this rezoning. This hotel has struggled financially for the last
several years and it has required us to apply disproportionate
financial resources and management time trying to improve its
performance. We have been hampered in our success because of the
developer's failure to fulfill his obligations regarding the
completion of development of Victor Corporate Park. To grant his
request for a change of zoning, such as is being proposed, will
forever condemn our hotel to economic oblivion. While we recognize
that market conditions have not been favorable towards office
development, that does not mean that these conditions will always
remain. The last thing Livonia needs is more strip retail along
Interstate 275. If the community is to fulfill its expectations
for quality corporate development it will not do so by rezoning
valuable real property assets just to suit short-term economic
objectives of the land owners. If you will recall, in order to
have this property zoned in the first place, Victor Corporate Park
made many promises to the City and to ourselves. We expect the
fir. City to require that Victor Corporate Park honor their promises and
commitments. This all-suite hotel is a quality amenity for the
City of Livonia and it is in the best long term interest of
everyone that everything reasonable be done to ensure its success.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner or his representative here tonight?
David Johnson: I am the Chairman of Victor International. The address is
on Northwestern Highway in Southfield. I think the most
appropriate way to proceed with this is to give you a little bit of
history on the property itself. We started with this property
with 11 different acquisitions in 1984 and 1985 and at that time
the market for offices was booming throughout the United States.
(He presented the original site plan that was used in the zoning
process) This was approved and zoned in 1985, nine years ago. In
1988 this was modified. At that time 25 acres were sold to Digital
Equipment Company on the north and Embassy Suites Hotel was in this
section here (he pointed this out on the plan) and we entered into
a joint venture with Hillman Corporation, one of the largest
national office developers in the United States. This was
re-master planned and site plan approved. The infrastructure was
put in for the entire project and these three buildings were site
plan approved with parking decks in this area, which would hold
2600 cars and approximately 750,000 feet. The market deteriorated
and Hillman proceeded and built what is now called Victor V. The
13183
construction started in 1990 and it is now approaching full
occupancy. (Mr. Johnson presented more plans of the area. ) We are
requesting that the commercial area be extended between Cantina
delRio and the Embassy Suites. It is self-buffered within our own
property by I-275. It is industrial zoning with CBS Fox on the
other side of the property and Target and the Source Club over here
and we are self-buffered from any residential areas by the
remainder of our property. In addition to that, in the master plan
we have remodified and removed a retail user and taken this down
from high-rise to low-rise office and no more parking decks. To do
that we have to understand where we are at today and what we wanted
to come there was a specific user for retail use that would
compliment the corporate park and compliment the project we have.
We have the available land that is undeveloped. We will still have
550,000 square feet of office space. The overall office market in
the City of Livonia is two million square feet so we would have 25%
of the total office space that exists today still remaining to be
developed. I have quite a team of people here. Dennis Burnside
with Grubb & Ellis. They are the largest office broker in the
state. John Cavalito who is the number one office broker. I would
like to have them give a brief presentation on the condition of the
market place and the efforts they have used on our project and what
the overall scope of the project is.
Mr. Burnside: (He presented slides showing figures on the office market for the
suburban Detroit area. ) In the metropolitan area there is about
seven and a half million square feet of vacant space available just
in the suburban market, not counting downtown, and in the best
years of our business we would absorb a million and a half square
Nft,, feet of space in any one given year, so with that scenario it would
take six to seven years to absorb the current space that is
available right now under the best of circumstances. Since the
mid 80's we are using less and less office space so the extreme
cynical person would say that there is probably 10 to 15 years of
vacant office space available. The realistic person would say 8 to
12 years of vacant space available over the next period of time.
Mr. Tent: How come there was an absence of Livonia in your study?
Mr. Burnside: These slides don't reflect Livonia. It was in there but it is
missing.
Mr. Tent: Could that be because Livonia is very cautious in its office
zoning? We have had several developers that wanted to come in here
and the time wasn't right and if we had gone ahead and approved
them, we would be in the same situation as Southfield, Troy, etc.
We have been very careful and now maybe the time is changing. We
have a good parkway here, Victor Parkway, and at the right time we
have a marketable product within our City because of the way we run
things. That is a concern of mine. I feel that the occupancy rate
with the office space we have here in Livonia is very stable.
Mr. Burnside: I am sorry. Livonia was in the slide presentation I had before.
13184
Mr. Morrow: I think the bottom line you are getting to is the lease rates will
probably be coming down as far as competing to fill up this seven
and a half million square feet. In other words, if you bring on
extreme new buildings, built at $120 to $130 a square foot to
'lam, compete with buildings that are being redone at $40 to $50 a square
foot, obviously the lease rates can come down. Is that a fair
assumption.
Mr. Burnside: I think there are two points to be said to that. One is that first
and foremost it is our experience in the last three years that
lending institutions who have historically lent money for office
developments have stopped. The well has run dry as far as they are
concerned. It is exactly because economically the rents that are
justified to represent some sort of investment return to the owners
and the lenders, the difference cannot be justified. To build a
new building today arguably you would need rents in the $20 a
square foot range minimum to justify an investment, but the market
is saying you can rent space from $12 to $15 a square foot
depending on what part of town you are in. The return on the
investment is not there.
Mr. Johnson: I would like Mr. Nagy to read the letter signed by the Hillman
Company. Ray Hildreth is also here to answer questions but I think
the letter summarizes his intent.
Mr. Nagy: This letter dated December 14, 1993 is addressed to Joe Taylor,
President and Honorable Members of Council and references Petition
No. 93-12-1-19 - Rezoning Victor Corporate Park. We ask that you
accept this letter written on behalf of Victor Corporate Park
Limited Partnership, owners of the property commonly referred to as
Victor V, 19500 Victor Parkway and Hillman Properties, Inc. as its
formal support of David Johnson's petition to rezone the vacant
land south of the Embassy Suite's Hotel, north of the Cantina del
Rio and west of Victor Parkway from PO-III to C-2.
Having been actively involved in the marketing and promotion of the
Victor site since 1988, we must reluctantly acknowledge that the
vision originally conceived for the Park is now only a very remote
possibility. Influences beyond our control will not permit us to
develop the property according to our original master plan. As
such, we must look to the opportunities which best suit the site in
light of the current market and development trends. You have come
to recognize that the marketing efforts of Victor Corporate Park
have never been viewed in the near term. But rather, they have
always been focused on the best possible use for the property and
the City of Livonia. Clearly, it is not in the best interest of
the developer or the City to see this property remain vacant and
unimproved. But that is precisely what will happen if we do not
reconsider our original vision for a high rise office park. A
return on the investment that we made in Victor Corporate Park and
its development potential must now be realized. Unfortunately, it
will not be as a full service mid and high rise corporate office
park; but rather, as a diverse mixed use development composed of
both office and commercial uses which are complementary to the
13185
existing hotel, office building and restaurant. This is, in our
opinion, a positive change in direction and development philosophy
for the Park.
`., The proposal being made by David Johnson to rezone the property
from PO-III to C2, again demonstrates his continued commitment to
provide the City of Livonia with a quality development despite the
change in uses. The development restrictions and architectural
controls negotiated by David Johnson will preserve the quality of
the Park and vision that we jointly sought for this property.
David has been attentive to the possible impacts of a large retail
user and the existing uses which include a hotel and mid rise
office building by providing definitive and well landscaped
buffering between the dissimilar uses. The image of the Park has
not been compromised; as David, again, has required the developer
of the proposed retail use to construct its building from materials
which are similar to that of the office building. Storage yards,
trash collection and receiving have been located or architecturally
treated to mitigate against their possible adverse impact to
adjoining properties and uses. We applaud David's continued
commitment to his vision and insistence on quality.
As David's associate in the development of the Park, Hillman
Properties, Inc. will continue to pursue office development within
the Park. However, the vision that conceived high rise structures
towering from the Park must now be abandoned in favor of a more
responsive vision for the Park which blends low and mid rise office
buildings, retail, hotels and restaurant uses. This diversity in
uses will expand the opportunity to realize the potential of Som. property. Coming to the conclusion that a redirection was required
was not arrived at without considerable thought and debate. But a
redirection and new focus is required for Victor Park.
We ask for your consideration and support of Petition No.
93-12-1-19. This was signed by M. Raymond Hildreth, Vice
President, Development, Hillman Properties, Inc.
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Hildreth is here and he will answer any questions you have. I
think what we are here to talk about is not an abandonment of our
plan but a change in our master plan of a 100 acre piece of
property that is a substantial piece of property to Livonia and to
the general market place in a decade of change. Who would have
envisioned ten years ago that we would be dealing with a free
Russia, that we would be dealing with computers that are running
businesses. That has changed the way corporate America is doing
business in its office market place but it has also changed the way
it is doing business in its retail market place. The traditional
strip centers from a retailing standpoint are changing to
accommodate the needs of the people for the 90's in the way they
are doing retail. What we wanted to accomplish is to come to you
with not only a request to change zoning so we could go out and
seek a retail user but we wanted to come with a complete concept of
an overall modified master plan that would take us through the 90's
and into the 2000's with a retail user that is a deep-pocketed,
what I call a 3,000 pound gorilla, that is going to stand behind
13186
their commitment and would do business consistent with the future
in the way we are going to need the retail to be done with the
office environment that would exist within the park and this
section of Livonia.
`.
We went on a two to three year search to find the right user
because we have the most at stake with the office building and the
hotel and to take into consideration the overall effect on the area
and general traffic. What we tried to do is come up with an
individual user that would occupy not the entire park but a 15 acre
parcel of land that sets in between the hotel and Cantina delRio on
a vacant piece of land, where the office property would set to the
north of the hotel, across the street adjacent to the existing
office building that is filled and again with the concept of the
self-buffering divided by Victor Parkway.
What we tried to do from there is take the concept that was
addressed in the original zoning of the 12-story office building
with the three-story parking deck with the hotel in the background
and then insert what we are talking about. Instead of a 750,000
square feet, 144 foot tall building in here, we would go with a
single-user, retail structure all brick, high-quality architectural
design and elimination of the high-rise buildings.
In our search to find the right user we concluded on a hometown
boy, Builders Square II backed by the Kmart Corporation, and with
the concept of total dedication to quality and a flagship store and
not a standard prototype store. What we wanted was something that
was consistent with the office buildings that existed within the
Nft. corporate park, consistent with the CBS Fox industrial facility
across the street, that was complimentary to the park and the
overall design. So this building was created from a concept
standpoint and we then got together with the Ramco-Gershensen
Company, which is one of the largest retail owners in the United
States, to work this out and get a 25 year commitment from the
Kmart Corporation and Ramco-Gershensen. We also designed this with
a great deal of sensitivity to the hotel, contrary to the letter
that was read. We started dealing with the hotel on this back in
September before we had entered into any agreement with Builders
Square and Ramco-Gershensen and we had a number of site plans back
and forth. Our commitment was instead of 20 foot buffers, from 100
to 150 foot buffers between the building and the hotel trying to be
sympathetic to all users. This store would typically fit on 11
acres. This represents 15.6 acres and there is about 3 acres that
are a greenbelt area. Between the hotel and Builders Square is
over two acres with an 8 foot berm and 200 evergreen trees to
soften this building.
The concept was that we still have the majority of our office land
which would go into a downsize mode of 500,000 square feet. The
original concept would have held three million square feet of
office. Again, there is a total of two million square feet of
office that exists in Livonia today. We would have loved to have
seen the 12-story high rises and the parking deck but that is
unrealistic in today's world. I would like to turn this meeting
over to Ted Simons of Builders Square.
13187
Ted Simons: I would like to tell you first that Builders Square is a division
of the Kmart Corporation with 165 stores and over three billion
dollars in sales. We are in the Detroit area right now with 12
units. We have three units under construction right now. In the
+ft. next five years I anticipate we will have 20 to 25 of our type
stores within this area. We intend and would like to be in Livonia
with a second location with a flagship store that is of the highest
quality and matches the architectural features of what else is in
the existing development with brick, an enclosed garden area and a
very, very fine complimentary operation for use by homeowners and
people that live within Livonia themselves. I am here to answer
any questions relative to our coming to Livonia.
Mr. Tent: What I am concerned about at this particular time is the zoning
and, of course, the entire project but the zoning now. In the
event Kmart is successful and the land is zoned commercial, they
can walk away from it and we are stuck with a commercial piece of
land there. You indicated that Kmart would be the principal user
of this particular piece of property.
Mr. Simons: Builders Square will be the user of this facility. In answer to
your concern, Builders Square is entering into a 25-year lease to
use the facility guaranteed by the Kmart Corporation.
Mr. Tent: What I am concerned with is the use of the property. There was an
article in the Detroit News January 6th about the Kmart
organization. Kmart needs the cash. In other words, they don't
have the big pocketbook because they have gone through
reorganization and they have sold Pace. It said one drawback Kmart
Niftpr won't be able to move forward with the initial public offering
until shareholders approve the deal in May. That was for the
Builders Square. In other words, you have indicated it would be a
separate subsidiary of the Kmart but they haven't gotten the
approval that the money is going to come in to fund these Builders
Squares.
Mr. Simons: What the Kmart Corporation has done recently has taken some
accounting adjustments in order to plan for the future. Much of
what was pointed out is similar to what General Motors did several
years ago recognizing that business has changed and taken some
adjustments and moved forward to prosper in the future. One of
these things the Kmart Corporation will be doing is issuing stock
to the public for minority interest in various subsidiaries,
Builders Square is one of their subsidiaries, keeping the majority
interest for the parent company. That will in turn, from the Kmart
prospective, raise some additional capital that they can use for
their own corporate needs but doesn't affect our use and operation
in this facility.
Mr. Tent: In that same general area the Source Club is gone and I understand,
and I don't know if it is verified yet, that Home Quarters is going
to be moving in that area. That is the same type of operation as
Builders Square. Out in Northville there will be one of the Home
Depots. The entire area there is going to have that type of
service. How will Kmart compete with all these other operations?
13188
Mr. Simons: We are the most experienced in the Detroit area. We, of course,
before coming in and making a big investment do a great deal of
study and hire independent consultants. We found the market is
extremely growth oriented out this way. It is a very successful
market for ourselves. We have come in here with a great deal of
,` study and believe firmly this will be a very successful operation
for ourselves. I think what the Council ought to consider is how
viable the retail area is by the simple fact that the Source Club
across the street hasn't been empty very long and apparently there
is somebody willing to step up and take its place, so that should
alleviate any concern you might have in the event we are not
successful, but we firmly believe this will be a successful
operation.
Mr. Tent: The other thing I question you on is the location. That is
primarily an office complex area. It is our golden corridor. You
have probably noticed there aren't a bunch of flashy signs and it
is very sophisticated. With Kmart how are you going to sell your
product in an area like that without your big K and the big circle
and the big entranceway and a lot of fanfare off the freeway? If
you don't do that, who is going to find it?
Mr. Simons: You have every single automobile traveling up and down I-275
looking out that way and seeing the restaurant that exists there
and also the buildings that exist there. We believe firmly that
just by the location and geographically where it is, it is the best
located facility of all our competitors. That is why we are so
strongly interested in locating here.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a few questions. The building that you propose there I
would term as a Tai Mahal of buildings. Number one, anything David
Johnson has done has always been first class in the City and he has
always been the first one to help charities because he always
wanted to be a part of the community. The question is Mr. Johnson
you made the comment that this would compliment the hotel and
restaurant. To my mind you have people coming to this beautiful
building and they are carrying out 2 x 4's, they are carrying out
sinks, they are carrying out paneling. How does that compliment a
hotel and restaurant?
Mr. Johnson: It is very common for a hotel to be located next to a retail
facility. The Marriott is located next to Laurel Park, The Hyatt
Regency and Ritz Carlton are located next to Fairlane Mall.
Mr. Alanskas: I go to the Builders Square quite often. I would say at least 50%
of your customers come there in trucks. They are individual people
that do their own home work and in that parkway to have this
traffic back and forth all day long, I don't think the building
belongs there. If you said on Haggerty Road I would say fine but
in that corridor you have that small parkway and to have a business
of that type, I don't see how it compliments the hotel or the
restaurant.
13189
Mr. Johnson: The main way it compliments the restaurant is by people being in
the service area. It is a direct compliment to the restaurant.
The answer with the hotel is that we have had criticism from the
hotel for a long time. They didn't want to be in the middle of a
field. They were in support of retail versus being in the middle
of a field. We felt we did not want a strip center. The only
firy thing that is marketable in today's real estate world is retail.
This is not a short term compromise. We are the ones with the most
at stake. We did a lot of homework to determine whether we thought
it was compatible. Hillman has a twenty million dollar investment
in the office building across the street and we felt because of
what we were able to accomplish from the design standpoint, quality
architecture and landscaping around it, the parkway is a four-lane
road that we built and this is a wholly-contained facility that
does not have any outdoor storage and we felt it would be
consistent.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a garden center?
Mr. Johnson: It is contained inside. The theme was Builders Square had to agree
to make a facility that was equal to or better than CBS Fox
directly across the street, which is an industrial use. In any
event what we wanted was a building that was physically compatible
from a material standpoint, landscaping standpoint, and would fit
the location.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hildreth wrote a letter dated 12-3-93 regarding
the project and his investment. He indicated times have changed,
etc. Now what do you intend to do, say if you were successful with
this zoning for commercial, what would you do with the balance of
the property?
Mr. Johnson: We did not want to come with a blanket request for C-2 zoning
without having a definitive user because of its impact on the other
buildings and because of our holdings. What we worked on and I
showed it earlier was a downsized new master plan for the balance
of the park keeping it consistent with the office use that is
mid-rise and low-rise office instead of 8 to 12 story buildings
with parking decks, four-story buildings, and the balance of the
park will still hold 550,000 square feet of five-story and below
office buildings. We are the ones with the most at stake and with
all the rest of the land that remains and basically it is
self-buffered.
Mr. Tent: Could we expect another letter in five years saying for the balance
of the property you can't move ahead? You want to change your
plans again?
Mr. Johnson: Hillman owns the office building. I own the land. I have agreed
in discussions with the Mayor that we would enter into an agreement
for at least five years to hold the balance of the land as office
zoning.
Mr. Morrow: I will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone present
wishing to speak for or against this petition.
13190
Stephen Bromberg: I am with the firm Butzel Long, 32270 Telegraph Road,
Birmingham. I am here on behalf of the Windsor Capital Group and
the Livonia Hotel Associates, which are the owners and operators of
the Embassy Suites Hotel. Initially I would like to state that we
did not receive a notice of this particular session until the
middle of last week. I don't know where you are sending the
notices but I would hope if I give you the address of the hotel
from now on we can have notices of any further proceedings sent to
us there so we would get a timely notice.
Mr. Morrow: Sir, let me just check with the staff as it relates to that. Do we
have a notice of any type of service to that group?
Mr, Nagy: Yes we sent it right to their address at 19525 Victor Parkway.
Mr. Bromberg: That is the current address. It wasn't to the attention of Mr.
Gutkowski the General Manager, and we did not receive it and as a
result we have been scrambling and I am at a slight disadvantage in
that I have not had months to prepare a great number of exhibits to
show our position in the same fashion.
We purchased this property in 1988. We built the hotel and it was
completed in 1990. We have been operating for three years in very
bad times and we have been subsidizing the operation of this hotel
during this period waiting for what we believed to be what we had
been promised in connection with this project. I would like, since
I had no opportunity to prepare something, to give you what I could
do, which is a document which Mr. Johnson prepared. It is called
the Victor Corporate Park Master Plan. If I may pass this among
you and then refer to it. I apologize for the fact I didn't have
time to do anything in a proper fashion.
Mr. Morrow: I want the record to show we did send it to your facility and it
was internal from there.
Mr. Nagy: I think the other point we should mention, it is an ordinance
requirement that the property be posted and there was a sign
advising the general public that this property was subject to a
zoning change and that was posted 30 days prior to this hearing.
Mr. Bromberg: We will make every effort within our organization and Mr.
Gutkowski, who is the Managing Director is here, and he will make
certain that anything that comes to us is given notice. We ended
up with a situation that this happened very quickly as far as we
were concerned.
You will see what was proposed for this park is on what is called a
Master Plan that David prepared for this particular project. The
Master Plan shows that number 9 is the Embassy Suites Hotel. The
property that he is proposing to rezone for the Builders Square use
is property number 3 and number 1 area, immediately adjacent. The
3 and 1, if you are out there, you will see the elevations of the
property to the south where he is talking about building are
substantially lower. If he attempts to build a berm, he is only
N...
13111
going to be able to partially obscure the view because the hotel is
substantially higher. It is a five-story hotel. What is going to
happen is, certainly above the second floor, everybody is going to
be looking down at this commercial operation. It is not something
that we particularly like in terms of our situation.
'`.
I think the very best way I can describe to you what we understood
is simply to quote Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson's attorney and Mr.
Johnson's architect from 1986. I am now quoting from page 9525 of
the minutes of January 7, 1986 before this Planning Commission. He
said his plans for an office park included his vision of "ideal
luxury office buildings" which would "be an asset to the City of
Livonia". At page 9524 Mr. Tangora, his attorney, said he,
referring to Mr. Johnson, is not going to be selling off parcels of
land. He will present a master plan and he will adhere to that
plan. Then in front of the Council on February 19, 1986, page 3 of
the minutes, I am quoting from Mr. Johnson "There will be no retail
shopping, no fast food shops, no uses of commercial other than
hotel to support the office needs, a conference center and a couple
of restaurants with fine dining". And then Ken Newman his
architect stated, and this is on page 4 of those minutes, "It is
our intent to make the buildings physically, characteristically
unified, use the same materials throughout the project". Certainly
not what we are hearing tonight. Then on page 5 "we believe this
will be the finest project of its type in the metropolitan area".
On page 9, this is Mr. Johnson, "We will maintain all of the
ownership of the buildings expressed here except for the hotel. It
will be controlled by us and used with our buildings. Their health
club facilities will be used for our office people and also a
luxury auditorium with all the appropriate electronic controls also
;` used by our office building. The hotel and the restaurant are to
support our office facilities to the corporate park, We are not in
the retail business or commercial sales." That was at page 9.
Page 23, again I am quoting, "It is our goal for Victor
International and our track record to dedicate ourselves to
developing a quality project. We take pride in our work and have
commitments to quality and we have made long-term commitments with
the communities we have done business with."
I submit to you that we are dealing with retail shopping, we are
dealing with short-term commitments, we are dealing with an
entirely different approach than we were told for this luxury
office park and that is the basis on which the zoning was obtained,
which changed the zoning, which was an RUFC zoning to a more
intense use. Now we are talking about increasing the intensity
again to a commercial use. We have a problem. There is no
question that the office market has been depressed. There is also
no question that the economy is now beginning, ever so slowly, to
change. There is no question at all, in my mind, since I represent
several local banks in closings, that there are now becoming loan
closings. Things are beginning to happen again, slowly but they
are happening. As for proper borrowers they can get loans. Also,
at one point Mr. Burnside's operation, Grubb & Ellis, a very
well-known and highly respected organization, published data which
13192
indicated that there were ten million square feet of vacant office
space in the metropolitan Detroit area. He just indicated tonight
that may be somewhat less. He cited a figure of 7.5 million in the
suburban area and that is an indication that there is something
happening in this market place. It is happening slowly but it is
happening.
From a zoning law standpoint we cannot have zoning done for
short-term economic gain. That is not the purpose of zoning. We
are dealing with property, which is supposed to be reasonable in
its use in comparison with the surrounding properties. The
short-term economic problems don't have anything to do with this
and all we are hearing is we have an economic problem which we must
resolve. You may have an economic problem but that doesn't require
a change in zoning.
From the standpoint of the hotel, we are very much opposed to the
Builders Square. We feel it is not compatible or in harmony with
the office development. The intent, when we entered into this
project was not to have retail next door. As a matter of fact, if
you would look at the Embassy Suites throughout the United States,
you will find that many of them are in office parks. Some of them
are adjacent to malls but none of them are in the middle of a
retail situation or right next door to a retail situation. That is
not quite the same situation.
I think it was indicated that there could possibly be a domino
effect here. You are zoning a piece of property in the middle of a
project C-2. You are permitting commercial use. What happens if
somebody to the north and west, who has another piece of property,
says to you "Oh, now you have commercial. You just granted
commercial. I want commercial." You are going to have, from a
standpoint of our case law in the State of Michigan, an extremely
difficult job in turning down that particular request because you
are going to have just granted a request of that sort on adjacent
property.
I think it was mentioned before that there is no guarantee that
Builders Square will be successful and I am not here to discuss the
financial structure of Kmart or its subsidiaries. However, if for
whatever reason, they don't have sales or for whatever reason they
are not successful, you have C-2 zoning. C-2 zoning will permit
multiple retail uses and then how do you deal with a new series of
site plans for site malls or whatever comes in as a result of that?
The Master Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia provides that it is
a goal to "encourage the timely development of those properties
along the I-96 and I-275 Freeways having locational advantages for
office development." In other words, it is the principle of the
City of Livonia, in its Master Plan, to promote office development
along I-275, which is exactly what happened here. Then under the
implementation heading of the Future Land Use Plan it states that
the policy is to "reduce the amount of commercial zoning to make
13193
"total acreage commensurate with the population's ability to
support it". Further, under the summary and conclusion portion it
says "office development will be used as a viable and stable
alternative to commercial land use. Office land uses will
primarily be near the Civic Center and adjacent to the I-275
Freeway". I submit to you that the existing office use in this
project is consistent with the principles of the Master Land Use
Plan, the zoning rules, not the economic problems, the zoning rules
that are applicable here.
I also submit to you that what you are being asked to do is known
as spot zoning. If you will check with counsel you will find there
are cases in the State of Michigan which clearly state that
municipalities cannot go forward with spot zoning. That is an
improper approach. I submit to you that to permit this project to
go forward as requested by David, you will destroy the original
concepts of the luxury office projects, which was the basis of the
hotel people coming in so that they had a base for their guests
coming to the hotel. I submit to you that you will destroy some of
the investment of this hotel and raise questions as to its economic
viability. They have gone through a period in which they have
subsidized their operation on the theory that what was committed to
them will take place, that there will be an office development here
which would ultimately support the situation so they were willing
to continue forward on that basis. This would destroy that clearly
and also would then create questions as to the jobs, etc. that are
involved. For all of these reasons I strongly urge rejection of
the rezoning.
Nour Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask you a couple of questions. Earlier you heard
from Mr. Johnson some contacts had been made prior to discussions
of any substance with Kmart or Builders Square Corporation. Were
there informal discussions with your firm on what the intent was on
that property?
Mr. Bromberg: There was some correspondence back and forth. We never agreed to
this situation. We have always opposed it. I can't comment on the
timing which is implicit in what you are saying. I don't know when
he spoke to Kmart vis-a-vis when he spoke to us. I can only
indicate to you that yes there was some correspondence and yes
there was a rejection on our part and yes there were objections on
the part of our principals as to this project going forward for the
reasons I recited.
Mr. Morrow: So the contacts where made but as far as you know, they were not in
agreement with the proposal.
Mr. Bromberg: Last Friday I read those letters and to the best of my recollection
on Tuesday there was no such agreement at all. There was never an
agreement.
Mr. Morrow: In your business transactions were there ever any covenants as to
preclude any type of zoning that he might want to do or is it just
his vision that he talked about?
13194
Mr. Bromberg: This is a very unusual project. Mr. Johnson was able to convince
people when they bought pieces of property from him that they
should not have standard building and use restrictions with
negative reciprocal easements, which means there are no
restrictions which cover the other pieces of property, only his
ability to enforce restrictions against them subject to certain
limitations. However, there is definitely contractual language
which I have read which indicates it would survive a closing as to
the hotel property being purchased and which provides for an office
park.
Mr. Morrow: One of the things as indicated, we cannot condition zoning. Any
property owner has at his disposal the opportunity to petition the
City for a change. Curiously, you said this would be a case of
spot zoning. I am not saying we are going to approve it or
disapprove it but if I am looking at the map correctly, isn't that
the hotel on the C-2 site?
Mr. Bromberg: No, it is on a C:-4III site.
Mr. Morrow: Which is commercial.
Mr. Bromberg: Yes and it is also commercial where the restaurant is but you will
recall the original statements the zoning was done on this property
with those various peculiar lines so that we could have an office
project which would have the benefit of the hotel and the
restaurant. They were only put in there in conjunction with the
office project and only for the benefit of it and I have read Mr.
Johnson's statement in which he says that.
Mr. Morrow: The point I was making, I certainly understand the vision that you
were under and where you are coming from but from a planning
standpoint it would appear to me if that were to change, it would
just be filling in between two commercial sites.
Mr. Bromberg: If you ignore what originally occurred here and from a strictly
theoretical standpoint, you have a commercial C-2 and you have a
commercial C-4III but that isn't the situation here. Those zoning
classifications were put in only in conjunction with the office
project. I read the statements from Mr. Johnson. The only reason
he had it there was to service the office park. This is not the
normal situation.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make that point. I understand how the property
came about to be rezoned. We do know that times change and we try
to follow the Master Plan as close as we can but we have to
recognize times do change. I am not saying I am for or against
this I am just making that point. Do you have anything else sir?
Mr. Bromberg: T have one final point. The reason I gave you the Master Plan was
to show you what the intent was. You can see from the Master Plan
that was prepared by Mr. Johnson's company that that is exactly
what they were proposing here, an office park in conjunction with
which we would have these amenities for the use of the occupants.
13195
Laurie Good, 37379 St. Martins: I feel a little like David against Goliath with
the presentation. I live on the east side of the property in the
residential homes and I can understand the gentleman before me and
what he had to say. I wouldn't want to pay $250 to $275 a night
for a hotel room and look down on a Builders Square in the parking
lot and the construction that would take place before that. I am
here to talk about not the environment strictly in Victor Park,
which I think is beautiful. I walk there all the time. I am
speaking as a resident. Number one, I am wondering first of all if
the people who own condominiums there on Victor Parkway between
Seven and Eight Mile, if they even know what the plan is because I
am sure the traffic is going to be increased one hundred fold. The
traffic there at Seven Mile and Newburgh right now is really bad
and obviously this is going to increase that. I am wondering when
the City of Livonia, what their plan is to stop the commercialism?
You just allocated a C-2 there at Haggerty and I can understand
that but I think enough is enough for that commercialism on that
northern part of Livonia. We have the Source Club and from what I
understand Home Quarters will be going in there. We have Meijers.
We have Target. A Builders Square is truly the last thing in the
world that we need. We have so many empty commercial buildings
sitting there, particularly on the south side of Eight Mile at
Farmington. There has been an empty shell sitting there for two
years. I would like to see some of these empty commercial
buildings filled before we change some property once again,
referring to the gentleman before me, for "short-term" profit.
There was no guarantee to Mr. Johnson, I assume, whenever he zoned
this PO and after that that the City of Livonia was going to give
him a guarantee of any income on the property. Because if you are,
then I will definitely buy some more property in Livonia if you are
,Air guaranteeing it because there are no guarantees and we all know
that. I suggest to Mr. Johnson he just wait and sit on it and
leave it the way it is because he is within a City of resident
taxpayers and we are really tired of the commercialism and I think
enough is enough. It would absolutely ruin the atmosphere having a
Builders Square there. Thank you gentlemen.
Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile: The first thing I would like to mention is I
believe that there has been some mention made about how the Victor
Corporation has the most at stake here and I question that. I
believe it is the citizens of Livonia that are the ones that have
the most at stake in this particular situation. There are four
things that I would like to address. Some of them have already
been spoken to but I would like to make a point of them. There was
mention made about how times have changed and as a result the
office market is not what it used to be. That is true and just as
they have changed over the last ten years, I believe they are
likely to change again over the next ten years. We have become
more and more of a service type economy and that tends to be a
little bit more office as opposed to industrial, etc. so I contend
that perhaps things might change a little bit and become more
positive for the office market in the future and we don't
necessarily have to jump in this particular situation. As far as
the commitment over the five years, unfortunately we are here right
now dealing with a break in the original commitment that was made
13196
when this was begun back in 1983 and 1984 and we have to recognize
that times can change and we could be back here dealing with
another commitment but nevertheless another change. I am not sure
about the commitment aspect and how much that is necessarily going
to hold. A third point I would like to make is that one of the
Sm. viable aspects I always found in the Victor Corporate Park was the
setting itself and I do not believe that if you include a
commercial enterprise into that corporate park that you are going
to maintain the atmosphere that was intended to be there and as a
result I think you are going to have a more difficult time filling
these "future office complexes". If the intent is to really have
an office corporate park, what you want to do is you want to make
that the most attractive office corporate park that you possibly
can. That is how you sell to your clients or your prospective
clients and by including commercial, a lumber yard in effect, I
don't think you are going to be achieving that end. The final
thing is how this might impact on the Digital Corporation and
whatever their plans might be. I am not sure whether they have
done away with their property. I believe they still own it. We
could conceivably be looking at the possible loss of Digital's
intent based on their looking at the situation and determining
whether or not they find this to be as attractive as they
originally thought it might be. If they don't like it, what are
they going to do with the property that they presently own? I am
also a little bit concerned, in lieu of the conversation that went
on before, about whether the Embassy Suites might try to get out of
that area if they don't find it as attractive as they originally
thought. Basically, what I am a little bit afraid of is if this
happens, that the Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile
will never be the Victor Parkway that was supposedly envisioned at
an earlier date. Victor Parkway, although it won't be as bad as
Ford Road in Canton, will begin to have commercial enterprise up
and down wherever things aren't quite working out so let's fill it
in and put things in here. That is a concern we all need to have.
Dan Murphy, Senior Vice President and Branch Manager with Paine-Webber. I think I
can lend a little perspective to maybe how some of the businesses
that are looking for space in Livonia might approach this. Our
present space is at Seven Mile Crossing and we have approximately
3500 square feet in that building. We have been looking all over
the City of Livonia as a major corporation that has been in
business since 1879, and we manage $135 billion of client assets.
We did a study to find out where was the ideal location to put a
new office. We put a new office up in 1991. We located in Livonia
because we felt that corridor was the golden area. It was a tough
time in the financial business, the market wasn't as high as it
had been, and it took a major commitment of our firm to say let's
make a commitment and go into Livonia. We now need to double our
space. We started looking all over Livonia. Do we want to stay in
Livonia or go to all this other space that is available in
Southfield and Troy, etc. and we said yes we do want to stay in
Livonia. We looked all over. We made a couple of offers for space
in our existing building that then was leased out to other
13197
corporations. For instance, Amoco recently came in and took 10,000
square feet in our building to make our building fully leased at
Seven Mile Crossing and they came from Chicago to go to this space
at Seven Mile and I-275. We then looked all over for a space that
was appropriate for a financial concern that had the right
Sur appearance for our type of a corporation. We then went to Victor
V. We found some space. We negotiated. We have a letter of
intent to take space in the Victor V mainly because again we have a
lot of our corporate people from New York and New Jersey come in,
the hotel is right across the street and we have the restaurant
that is now there. We liked the major plan that we saw of the new
buildings that were going to go up in the future. There was only
one space left in that building. You are starting to see the
economy pick up and I think you are starting to see it in Livonia.
I think it wasn't brought up but Livonia has a tighter office
market. We looked all over for appropriate exit on ramps, off
ramps, restaurants that you need to be able to take clients out,
etc. We said we want to stay in Livonia. It bothers me and it
concerns me that we are going to go there and see a Builders Square
out our window. That does bother me. It is a beautiful area there
and we like that whole environment there and that is why we made
that decision to go there and I would be concerned if you went
ahead and approved them to be in there. That is our perspective,
again as a new tenant going for more space in the City of Livonia,
doubling our size. and I am sure there are more people looking for
space in Livonia. I know of another of our clients in Livonia who
has been looking for 10,000 square feet and cannot find it. They
have asked to subleaseour space at Seven Mile Crossing. That is
the feeling I get in this market.
`s Resident at 17555 Park: I apologize for my appearance but I was watching the
proceedings at home and as a resident of the City of Livonia at
17555 Park and also a business owner that is located at 19500
Victor Parkway, I was appalled at what I saw being proposed to go
in that parkway and I felt compelled to throw on the quickest thing
I could to come here and state my extreme displeasure with what is
being proposed. My business located at Victor V development two
years ago at which time we were about the third tenant in the
building. It was very underleased at that time. As of today's
date the building is just about fully leased and it was my
understanding that once that building was to be substantially
leased they were to break ground across from us on a corresponding
mirror image of our building. The promises that were made to me as
a business owner locating our business in Victor V was that the
Victor Parkway Corporate Park was going to be just that, a
corporate park with luxury office space, a restaurant and a hotel
that was going to attract professional organizations like myself.
If you look at the tenant structure of Victor V you will see
several large retail corporations as well as some smaller corporate
headquarters like myself that were relying on luxury office space
and not to be involved in a technology park or a park less than
luxury office space. I am afraid that if the committee here
approves a Builders Square, that you are going to diminish all of
our aspirations and commitments that were made to us. Speaking
13198
as a resident of the City of Livonia and a frequent shopper of
Builders Square, I go both between the one located at Twelve Oaks
and the one on Plymouth Road, and being located at Six Mile and
Wayne Road I see no necessity of having another one located within
a few miles of my house. I have no difficulty spending ten minutes
in the car to go to either one of the other Builders Squares.
Mr. Johnson: I think what I would like to do is answer a few of the questions
that have been raised. First of all, this is not a short-term
solution. We built four-lane boulevard roads through the inside of
the project and built the road out to Newburgh. We built the
infrastructure 100%, landscaped all the entrance ways and
maintained the parkway, maintained the entrance ways and maintained
everything in an attempt to rent office space. We built a $350,000
pond in the front end and paid in excess of two million dollars in
real estate taxes over the last nine years of being involved in
this project. What we are here for today is in an effort to have
an overall corporate park and business environment changed to a
mixed use with the balance of office land that will still hold
600,000 square feet of office space, which will be the biggest
office park still in the City of Livonia, which will occupy almost
30% of the total square footage of office space that exists in the
City of Livonia. We are not the ones that changed the office
market throughout the United States or the ones that changed the
way business is being done throughout corporate America creating
the downsizing of General Motors, IBM, Zerox, Ford Motor Company,
etc. and the radical changes that have taken place in technology.
I am not the one that invented hand-held phones and pocket
computers and computers that are lap-top computers that didn't
exist ten years ago and that radically affect the overall
environment of corporate America and created downsizing and no
longer needs, in many cases, 12-story or high-rise office buildings
in this area. What we have attempted to do is a vision that was
presented in the middle 80's that was anticipated at the time to
take ten years to fill up and a design of what has happened. We
have given every effort to do that. In that period of time the
I-275 corridor was changed. What was going to be high-rise office
buildings and a grand hotel by Mr. Jonna is now a Target and Source
Club. The impact of what we are trying to do here is to take a
premium-quality structure, single-user retailer that exists from a
standpoint of aesthetics, materials and landscaping and all those
things that have been agreed to in the front and a use that would
be consistent with the rest of the park. We still have the balance
of the land which buffers this. We feel it is an appropriate
zoning situation. It is consistent with the commercial area here.
In fact, this commercial zoning does run into the property. What
was talked about looking down from the hotel into the retail area,
the difference is it would be looking down at parking decks. From
that standpoint we feel that is enhanced. We did a great deal of
effort to cooperate and communicate with Embassy Suites. We sent
site plans back and forth. We feel we acted responsibly and have
come up with a sensitive design.
13199
Mr. Tent: Dave, you have heard two corporate executives here that were
looking for space here in the City of Livonia. Victor V is already
100% leased?
�,. Mr. Johnson: It is 87% leased.
Mr. Tent: We are moving up the ladder as was presented here.
Mr. Johnson: Let's talk about that for a minute. Mr. Hildreth is here. This is
a building that was projected to rent for $21 a square foot. It
was started in 1990. It is now 1994. It is not an economic
success. It is to the credit of the Hillman Company that it is not
one of the statistics that was listed on the slides and is being
sold by the bank at $40 a square foot. The building cost $135 a
square foot and is a commitment to the quality that we said we
would deliver to the park as is the Builders Square II store, which
there isn't a Builders Square II store anywhere that looks like
this. The fact is I hope it is successful. I hope there is a
market there because we have 600,000 more square feet to fill up.
Mr. Tent: How far are you away from the second building?
Mr. Johnson: There is no market place for a second building. The Victor V
building was built to appeal to big users. In fact, it didn't
appeal to big users because there weren't a number of big users and
it is now filled with small users.
Ray Hildreth, Vice President of Hillman Properties: I would like to pick up on Mr.
Tent's comment that if you build it, they will come. That is
"gay exactly the philosophy we try to use with our lenders. That is
exactly the tactic we take. We promote Livonia as an outstanding
market place. If you can stand only on the statistics of
Livonia, it is a good place to build a building. Hillman has
been prepared since the completion of Victor V to move ahead with
Victor IV. The drawings are there but we cannot find the tenants
to come to this building for this marketplace demands a product
first. Most lending institutes will not forward the cash or make
available the cash to build these speculative office buildings.
Hillman has remained very successful. Unfortunately this market
place, with the size tenants we are dealing with, we cannot build
those kinds of buildings. We recently had an opportunity to do
another 40,000 square feet, which we thought would be the anchor
for Victor IV, because we wanted to do a 60,000 to 90,000 square
foot building. Our lenders told us unless the building is 75%
pre-leased and committed, we will not fund that project. There
have been extraordinary sums of money by the Hillman Corporation
in maintaining and keeping this building in place. We have
struggled just as the Embassy Suites people have struggled. We
are committed to stay there. We will find a way over the long
term to build out the office but we will have to wait for the
market to return. We are not just dealing with the Livonia
market. We have to deal with Detroit and Detroit holds the stigma.
The minute we can find a lender, we will be back and we will move
ahead with Victor IV. That is our commitment to Dave and that is
our commitment to the City.
13200
Mr. Tent: I just heard tonight the market is beginning to pick up. There
were some banking people here who indicated they were beginning to
lend money.
Mr. Hildreth: We have talked to seven regional banks in this area and we can't
get money.
Cameron Piggitt of Dykema-Gossett: I am in charge of real estate. First of all I
would like to give my compliments to Mr. Bromberg. He gave a very
nice speech. He has only been retained in the last week or so and
they don't know some of the history of this project. I have been
involved on behalf of David Johnson, my good friend, and Victor
from the beginning. First of all let me correct a mis-impression.
There have been discussions at the principal level, not with Mr.
Bromberg's office, with regard to the possible rezoning for several
months. This is not a surprise. Number two, there is the
impression left that some promises have been made way back when the
hotel was built that there would be restrictions on the property to
the size of the hotel. I can tell you that was absolutely not the
case. The closing documents say there were no negative reciprocal
easements. There were discussions during some very contentious
negotiations over a very extended period of time whereby Mr.
Bromberg's now client attempted to impose those restrictions and
they were resisted. Our position has always been with City Council
what will happen will be market driven. Finally, I have heard some
discussions about the financing of speculative office buildings.
We have the largest real estate practice of anybody in the state.
I am involved in this business every day. I think there is almost
no financing for speculative office buildings going on. I
,` certainly haven't seen any for a long, long period of time. I
think there are some positive signs. Companies like Paine-Webber
and others are starting to expand but before you can package those
size tenants together, there are going to be many years to get the
financing to put up that sort of a building. The industry has seen
a big change. The market has changed. It is not just the banks.
It is the insurance companies. It is across the board. They are
all trying to get real estate back. When you think about the
overview of what is happening here tonight, this is not a temporary
economic crisis. This is not something that a year or two from now
is going to change. This is something that will take many, many
years before 12-story office buildings are going to be popular. I
would like to say it is only short term. That is not going to be
the case.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Johnson, I have a question to ask you. Number one, I want to
commend you. At least you came in here and asked for a rezoning
and you came in with a building, telling us what the tenant is
going to be. In the previous case, we just gave a rezoning to
somebody who wouldn't tell us what is going in there.
Consequently, anything can go in there as long it is a permitted
use in the C-2 district, which I think is wrong. Getting back to
Kmart. My understanding from the Kmart representative, you are
going to get a 25-year lease, which means he is obligated to you
for rent for 25 years. Knowing the Kmart and how they operate, the
parent company and I assume Builders Square operates the same way,
13201
after ten years if the parent company doesn't feel that Builders
Square is not making the bottom line profit they feel should be
generated at this location, they are not going to stay. They are
going to close down the store and move out and that doesn't hurt
,` you because you have a 25-year lease but it hurts the City of
Livonia and its residents that live here. My question to you sir
is if they move out after 10 to 15 years, you have a 110,000 square
foot building along a nice parkway. What can that building be used
for?
Mr. Johnson: We teamed up with Ramco-Gershenson, who are leading retailers, in
conjunction with Kmart on this. Why was such a crucial partnership
made a requirement before we came to you and before we had a deal
with them and the only contingency in our deal with them is the
zoning? There is no other contingency of any nature whatsoever.
The critical nature of the proposal was to get a building that was
consistent with CBX Fox across the street and had the ability to be
used in a similar type situation.
Mr. LaPine: The point is you have a C-2 classification, you could bring
anything you want in if Builders Square is not successful and that
is the problem I have.
Mr. Johnson: We did not come in to ask for blanket C-2 zoning. We came in with
a specific use with a flagship store, which would normally sit on
11 acres using 15.6 acres with heavy landscaping commitments all
the way around.
Mr. LaPine: But you have the C-2 zoning then. You have to have the C-2 zoning
to build the Builders Square. Once you have C-2 zoning and
Builders Square should go under, I hope they never do, you can
build anything you want in there as long as it meets the C-2 zoning
under the ordinance.
Mr. Simons: Let me address this from a retail perspective. What you have
here is a prime piece of retail location.
Mr. LaPine: We have a difference of agreement. I don't think it is the right
location for that. You know your business but to me this is off
the beaten path, in my opinion.
Mr. Johnson: The path is I-275. The path from day one of what we are trying to
do is the front yard, which is I-275.
Mr. Simons: Not withstanding, you have a very good piece of real estate here
location wise. While we made a long-term commitment here I think
you can rest assured if for whatever reason, and we don't
anticipate a reason at all, an excellent piece of real estate will
recycle itself for another large, successful retail user as has
been demonstrated across the street with the retail opportunities
over there. I think what you are looking at is not only an
economic basis for this piece of property but also because of its
locational features you will have another user there and not an
empty building.
13202
Mr. LaPine: Let me give you an example. At a good location in Livonia at Seven
Mile and Middlebelt Road we had a Joshua Door Furniture Store back
in the 70's when the big furniture outlets were built. They went
under. Ever since that store went under we have had nothing but
stores running through it left and right and it is a good location.
We can't keep anything there. We had Marshall's Department Store.
They pulled out. Half of the stores in that whole center are empty
and have been empty for years so that is not really a good
argument, a good location.
Mr. Johnson: What we are talking about here is the Kmart Corporation which is
the second largest retailer in the United States and what we have
is a secure product, a specific identified use with the highest
quality exterior.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Johnson, I don't disagree with you. If you get your rezoning I
think if I had to have someone in there, I think you have a good
quality organization and the type of building you are going to
build is a beautiful building, but the question is do we need it in
the City of Livonia?
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-12-1-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#1-5-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-1-19 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment
W. Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile
Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from P0, PO III and C-4III to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 93-12-1-19 be denied for
the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use
Plan designation of Office.
2) That there is no demonstrated need for uses permitted by the
proposed C-2 zoning district.
3) That the Victor Corporate Park road system was not designed to
accommodate the commercial traffic generated by uses permitted in
the C-2 zoning district.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses and zoning
districts in the area.
5) That the City is currently well served with uses permitted by the
C-2 zoning district in this general 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.
13203
Mr. McCann: I came here tonight trying to keep as open a mind as I possibly
could. Mr. Johnson brought tremendous development to the City of
Livonia, something he believed in. I met with him before this
meeting tonight and went over it. I tried to keep an open mind but
ro,,,, the problem is times have changed. We are not going to be able to
get the 12-story user like he wanted. We need to be able to change
the focus of where we are going with this but we have to not be in
a hurry. As was said tonight when you own a piece of property,
sometimes you have to take some rest with it too and you can't
develop it as quickly as you would like. I don't think that
Builders Square is the right type of image going into a corporate
park. I don't know what the needs are over the next ten years. As
you have stated the last ten years brought tremendous change. I
told you the other day I felt the I-275/I-96 corridor in the next
ten years is going to be the prime area in the metro area. I think
we are going to see a lot of development coming here. It could be
incorporated within the corporate park and be good neighbors for
the users that are already there. It is well designed. You have
done an excellent job in what you have done so far but I am going
to have to vote against it because I don't think that type of
commercial use at this point is appropriate.
Mr. Tent: The reason I made the denying motion, nothing against the Victor
Parkway or the developer. Mr. Johnson has done a tremendous job
there. I would like to see it succeed but in this case I have to
agree with Mr.McCann about the use of the land for this particular
function. Therefore, I want to encourage you to continue on with
what you have done in the City. Things will be picking up but I
too cannot support this particular development.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Johnson: I would like to ask the Commission to waive the 7-day waiting
period.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#1-6-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 93-12-1-19 by Victor Corporate Park Land
Investment Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of
Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P0, PO III and C-III to C-2.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Tent
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13204
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-2-27
by DeMattia & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a
fellowship hall addition to an existing church located on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
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 waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
the Traffic Bureau stating their office has no objection to the
site plan as submitted.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner or his representative here?
Oz Wagner, Architect with DeMattia & Associates, 45501 Elm Street, Plymouth: We
are here this evening to talk about an addition to Memorial Church
of Christ. The church itself has been a member of the City of
Livonia since 1970. Since that time it has found itself in a
growth period where its membership has increased to 425 members and
they now find their current facility, which is approximately 22,000
square feet, is too small and they need to expand their current
operation. The proposal in front of you today is a fellowship hall
addition, something that is very much needed. With the way they
function this space is educational space that is used for bible
study classes that run concurrently on Sundays during their worship
service. Their current worship space seats 366 people. We are not
planning on expanding that. This addition is strictly education
space. What I would like to do is just spend some time here
looking at the site plan. (He presented the site plan to the
Commissioners and audience) We did have a meeting with some of the
homeowners just before Thanksgiving where we invited all the
adjacent homeowners to a very informal meeting at the church to
introduce the project to them and see how they felt about it. At
that time there weren't any major objections other than some
lighting concerns, actually asking for some more lighting and some
drainage problems but nothing of any real major concerns from their
point of view. Again, out of the 20 or so property owners there
were eight or so in attendance. We did not have a complete
majority. What we did was as we have been developing this parcel
we have been trying to be very sensitive to the fact that we had
residential property neighboring us. On the east end are all rear
yards. People look out through the yards at the current
development that is there and the future development that we are
proposing now. The same thing happens here on the south side. We
tried, as best we can, to leave perimeter bumper space. We have 40
feet in this area along the east side. We have saved some of the
mature vegetation that is there. There was quite a bit of it along
the property line. We are intending to leave that and then
supplement it with additional plant material. (He pointed out some
additional landscaping they would be adding) At the south side we
13205
have nine feet or so from here to the edge of the parking. We will
leave that as an existing condition the way it is with some of the
large trees that are there. To the west there is one residence
here. This resident owns everything here. It is very undeveloped.
Just a series of heavy woods there. That is what we are proposing
at the moment. Parking currently on the property is around 122.
This is showing 295. Lighting, at least as proposed right now, the
existing building has some lighting attached to it in front. There
are a couple of poles in the back. It is not a very well lit
parcel at the moment. What we are proposing is at least a half a
dozen light poles in these locations to act as security lights to
light it enough to see if there is anybody out there. There will
also be some additional lighting at the entrance.
Mr. Alanskas: Where is the handicap parking spaces and how many do you have?
Mr. Wagner: (He pointed out the area on the site plan). We will have ten
handicap spaces.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Wagner, the lights you say you are going to have, are they on
the drawings?
Mr. Wagner: Yes.
(Mr. Wagner presented the floor plan)
Mr. Wagner: They have no intent to lease this out. It is strictly for their
own use. The question might come up what about wedding receptions.
I got some information from the minister this evening. They don't
have more than two to three wedding receptions here in a year. The
reason for that is there is no dancing allowed, no alcohol allowed.
All you might have would be a gathering after some wedding where
they might serve them brunch. Two to three a year is all they have
now and that is all they expect to have.
(Mr. Wagner presented the building elevation plans)
Mr. Wagner: The current facility is about 23 feet to the peak. Our highest
point is 33 feet. We are allowed 35 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: For the new unit where are the air conditioning units going to be?
Mr. Wagner: Because of the roof slope it allows them to be put in these spaces
around the perimeter so we get this little triangular attic space.
They are all going to be located around the building in that attic
space. They will be hidden.
Karen Makled, 15069 Yale: I would like to submit a petition opposing this. That
is signed by a majority of the homeowners that are involved in
this. First of all I would like to say I believe my backyard is an
extension of my home. I don't know if you are aware that Yale is a
very busy street. We have a lot of cars going through to the
cul-de-sac at the back. We spend a lot of time in our backyard and
13206
I just feel that I might as well be living on Five Mile Road. I am
going to see parking lots. I am going to see more activity. I am
going to have three lights behind and I oppose this greatly.
+4111. Mr. Morrow: Let me just read what the petition says. I reads the undersigned
property owners are unequivocally opposed to the construction
requested in Petition 93-11-1-27. Our objections are deep and firm
to every request of the proposed petition, and there is no possible
alteration to it to which we would agree. We request that Petition
93-11-1-27 be denied. There are about 22 signatures on it. We
will make this a part of the record.
Lisa Kujawa, 14869 Park: First of all I never received any notice prior to this
week that anything was going on behind us. I saw surveyors out
there last summer. I went out and asked them what was going on and
and that was the only information I ever got. My house faces
directly south of the proposed parking lot. I will have nothing
but cars pulling into the parking area with headlights shining
directly into my family room and my kitchen because I live in a
tri-level. We have enough activity there with non-church hours as
it is. If you propose to increase the amount of parking lot, the
kids can come closer to my house. I have found empty beer bottles
back there, partying going on as it is and now it will come closer
to my house and that is a concern to me as a homeowner. Resale
value, what does this do to my house? If I want to sell my house,
my house is looking at a parking lot behind me. I think it is
going to decrease my property value. These are all big concerns
for all of us. We have enjoyed looking at just the nice land
behind us. Not that they don't have the right to build there but
‘ttler this will only be a big eyesore. Street lights, we have repeatedly
rejected street lights in our area. They are going to be putting
all these big parking lots out there in the back of us. We are
going to have nothing but lights shining down on us. They are in
church three times a week and all these lights shining on us in my
home which will reduce my privacy. These are all big concerns for
all of us on the south side because we all face the back end of
where they are going to be parking.
David Rohde, 15081 Yale: My backyard, of course, also faces the project. I too
feel that my yard is an extension of my home. I have re-mortgaged
my home, in fact, and spent a considerable amount of money to
develop my backyard. With the permission of the Chairman I have a
few photographs of my yard and what I have done to it. (He
presented his photos to the Commission) Through my re-mortgage and
with a lot of effort I have spent in excess of $50,000 putting in a
pool and having a private place where I hope to enjoy my remaining
years. I am a resident of Livonia in that home since it was built
in 1960. I don't want a parking lot behind me. I don't want
lights, which I believe will be on 20-foot towers immediately
lighting up this whole secluded area. I am very much opposed to
the traffic. Yale is an extremely busy street because it is the
only through street that services Five Mile Road down to
Schoolcraft. When I leave my home and go to Five Mile Road, we
have to wait sometimes as much as 7, 8, 9, 10 minutes to get out
13207
on Five Mile Road because of the traffic. There is simply a stop
street there. There is no light. I feel the additional parking
sounds like it is going to be doubled or more. When the church is
going to be having activities, it certainly is going to hinder
• traffic leaving Yale trying to get out on Five Mile Road. I feel
this also will deteriorate the value of my home and my property.
John Sparkman, 15057 Yale: One of my major concerns is I heard the extensive use
of Mr. Clark's name here tonight. I assume he is still a City
engineer and the statements I am going to make he can confirm if
they still have the records there of the extensive damages since
1970 with the building of that church that I have incurred on my
property. The gentleman that just sat down, on the night of the
meeting at the church building, he made me a promise sometime ago,
I don't recall the exact date. There was installation of a catch
basin that was connected into the City catch basin, the storm sewer
on the southwest corner of my property. I was informed that the
insurance company had paid me off that night and this is untrue. I
have never been compensated for any of the damages incurred by my
property from that church. I have had so many problems with
flooding. I have had my basement repaired three times from leaks.
If you look up your City records, you will find information on the
flooding in that area. Because of the elevation you are sitting
higher. I am the lowest person in that subdivision. In the
southwest corner is the catch basin and my problem is how can we be
assured this is not going to occur again because by giving them
permission to come across my property to put a catch basin in the
property behind me to ensure the drainage, up until this time I
have incurred expenses of installing seep sewers between my house
and the house on the north side of me. The City allowed me to
connect that seep sewer between our houses into the City storm
�r. sewer and the street. As a matter of fact, they made the
connection under the sidewalk from my yard to the catch basin.
Upon the completion of the installation of that sewer they put in
back there they were supposed to have taken care of all the expense
of putting my property back in order. My fence was left down in
two separate places. The posts were uprooted. I think probably
everyone here is aware that at one time our property w
as adump.
There was garbage strewn all over my backyard. had to buy
topsoil. I had to buy sod. One time I had to resod my backyard
and I am going to be strongly opposed to this. I could go on and
on but the night is getting on so I am going to be sstrongly
lynsel.
opposed to this that if it is approved, am going to seek
John Deckert, 14893 Park: I am on the southeast corner of the church. I have
about 120 feet that borders them. I bought that property because
of the openness of the area and I am going to end up with 30 feet
of parking lot that borders my property. I like to look at stars
at night. I might as well forget that. I am going to hear traffic
instead of birds. My view is going to be a big building, which is
going to be a lot bigger than the one that is there now, a lot
taller. I am not going to be able to relax in my backyard. The
traffic and the noise is going to hinder me. I am sure my property
value is going to go down. As it is now someone would be happy to
13208
buy it. I have an extended backyard. Something that does bother
me is their proposal to double the size of the parking lot. They
said the sanctuary is not going to change. It is not going to get
any bigger. The say the addition is for educating the children.
Children don't drive. Why do you need to double the size of the
parking lot if you are not increasing the size of the sanctuary
unless you are anticipating renting that structure out. I oppose
it strongly.
Mrs. Rosta, 15153 Yale: I am the fourth house off Five Mile so I am at the
beginning of the construction. Everyone else that has been up here
has double lots. I have a single lot so when I am outside, the
first thing I will see will be cars. I will get all the traffic.
from the new main entrance. I have kids that like to play in the
backyard. It is not going to be comfortable. They were talking
about lighting. There is a church behind the houses across the
street from me that lust put up lights. My whole front yard is all
lit up from this light. I don't want my whole backyard lit up from
these lights too. With the center being bigger they may have more
weddings and have more functions. The kids are loud. They have
buses. Right now at ten and eleven o'clock at night there are kids
out there and it is noisy. I have a colonial and all the noise
travels up. How many more groups are they going to have that I am
going to have to put up with?
Dennis Brennan, 14905 Park: I am south of the church property. The first thing I
want to say is the gentleman stated notices were given for the
meeting at the church. I found the notice jammed in my front door
at six o'clock the night they held the meeting. It wasn't enough
time for anybody to have time to prepare for anything except go up
Nur there and see what they were going to do. There was no advance
notice of the meeting that they held for the neighbors and now they
are claiming that the people aren't opposed. I think it is clear
that everybody here is opposed to this. When I bought my house in
1988, the reason I bought that house and I paid a premium price for
it was because of the privacy of the backyard area. I like the
streets because there are no street lights. I like the area the
way it is. If they put up the lights in the backyard, I am going
to be looking at a constant glare. I won't be able to view the
stars with my neighbor and all those type of things. Tonight
before I came here there was a meeting up at the church apparently,
and it is quite a distance away from my house, and yet constantly I
had lights shining into my family room as they pulled around the
back of the. building. They are now going to double the size of the
building and then put the parking lot behind that which means I
have the cars that much closer which means the lights are going to
be that much brighter shining into my house. Also, the current
building they say is 23 feet and they are going up to 33 feet.
That is a big difference. Currently as I look out the back I can
see the church. If you raise that ceiling ten feet and then bring
it closer to my house, I have lost my whole skyline. There is no
need for this to go in there. The people in the area are opposed
to it. I will just incorporate the argument of everybody else. I
am very strongly opposed to this.
13209
Jerry Perkins, 15129 Yale: My property is one of the shorter lots and it abuts the
property of the church. I agree with everything that has been
stated here by the other people. I would like to bring out a
couple of points that may or may not be clear. The first view of
the property of the church, it is not a rectangular property
Sum. section. You see a section that abuts out on the south side. That
was not originally church property. They have recently procured
that from a private property owner. That means all of the people
including our property, we had a buffer. We had a long lot that
separated us from the church parking lot. They have just purchased
that property and moved it forward. That means the people who
bought the property, even considering the rights of the church,
never expected that the church would be moved across and right up
to their backyard. It has been alluded to but I would like to
bring out in more detail that the property of the church is
significantly higher than the property all along the area in which
they are expanding on Yale. That means all the gasoline, oil,
anti-freeze and runoff from that parking lot is going to be coming
down into our backyard and homes. This is where we live. This is
where we raise our children. On a personal note, I have a teenager
who attends the youth group at St. Colettes and I would commend St.
Colettes on the closeness which they control their youth groups.
Nevertheless, when they have activities at that church in their
activity center, there is noise, there is speeding, and the City of
Livonia provides police security and I would fully expect the City
of Livonia would have to provide security in this case as well.
They are asking for almost a 100% more in parking than what the
structure requires. I wonder what is the compelling reason for
this committee to approve this petition. We are the people who pay
taxes in this area not the church and we pay many thousands of
dollars for that property. I ask this Commission to exercise its
fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Livonia and to protect
our rights.
Mary Ann Rhode, 15081 Yale: I am married to the man who has the best-looking yard
in town. They did a good job but what he forgot to tell you is
that two sides of our yard will be covered by a parking lot. They
are going to come towards us towards the south and they are going
to come towards us towards the east and I go out there and that is
my serenity. I go out for a swim or to take my grandchildren out
there and sometimes for morning tea and I don't want to see a car
pull up on the side of me and pull up on the back of me and I
almost want to beg you not to let this pass.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wagner, before I close the public hearing do you have any
additional comments?
Mr. Wagner: I would like to try to address some of the neighbors' concerns. I
would also like Mr. Robert Porter, who is Chairman of the Building
Committee, to address some of the other concerns that were brought
up this evening. I would like to start with site lighting. There
seems to be a big concern about the amount of lighting. There is
no intent on the church's behalf to make this a lit parking lot
like a shopping mall parking lot. We have six poles in this area
that are there really for security reasons in case kids are back
there drinking on the weekends. That is what they are there for.
13210
If we need to, they are on photo-control. They can be sensed to
come on in the evening when it is dark and those controls can be
overridden so they go off at a certain time of the night if they
want it dark but I wouldn't want it dark. I live, myself, in
Plymouth and I have a school behind me. I don't want it dark. I
Nte., want to be able to see. This is not a heavily-lit site. If you
are concerned about the light level, visit the Ford Child-Care
Center on Ann Arbor Road between I-275 and Newburgh. It is the
same type of lighting. This isn't a highly lit site. Another
issue was storm drains. In the past when this project was
developed you can see Mr. Sparkman has had some serious problems.
The way this site currently drains, the high point goes to the
back. All of that is here to drain out at the moment. What we are
proposing is a complete underground storm sewer system that takes
all the runoff from all the hard-surfaced areas, takes them to an
underground system. We have a series of catch basins here on this
side running together. You heard from the Engineering review that
they don't have any major concerns at this point. We are
controlling the storm drainage. We are going to improve what is
there, which is minimal. I would like Mr. Porter to talk about how
the church operates, hours of operation, some of the things like
when and the type of activities that will happen.
Mr. Tent: How can you control the headlights from beaming in to the
residences on either side?
Mr. Wagner: Right now the only thing you can do would be to plant plant
materials around the whole thing.
Mr. Tent: Where I am coming from is the Wards Church up at Six Mile and
Farmington Road. When they built that church there they had a
tremendous problem with the neighbors abutting the property with
headlights shining into their windows. We heard about that
constantly and I see the same thing here where you are going to
have cars pulling into the parking lot and there is going to be
lights shining on those homes. How are you going to control that?
Mr. Wagner: Right now other than screening the whole perimeter of the parking
area there is no way to control it.
Bob Porter: I am the Building Committee Chairman for Memorial Church Christ. I
have gone there for approximately 33 years. I am an architect as
well and very interested in the project. One of the concerns was
parking, the number of spaces. What you need with our
congregation as opposed to perhaps some other ones, we have a dual
worship bible school. That constitutes bible school attendance as
well as church happening simultaneously. There are times within
that transition where we have perhaps anywhere from 25 to 50 cars
in the parking lot during that transition time. That additional
parking that is there is to handle that overflow. Twenty-five
minutes after starting time from one service to the next the
majority, perhaps 50, of those spaces will be vacated. But at this
point we have to accommodate those numbers. One of the concerns is
295. We presently have approximately 122. We are utilizing about
a..
13211
150. They are parking in the horseshoe in front of the building so
actually we are accommodating approximately 150 spaces but we are
increasing it to the maximum of 295. The thought is a good
majority of the people in the congregation are elderly and believe
you me they are concerned with the amount of parking space. More
Sow than likely what we would like to do is in the event we don't have
to go that far, what we wanted to present today would be the
maximum that we would anticipate based on what we perceive as being
required. One of the concerns, I believe, as well was that of
buses. The church owns not one bus. We have a van, a 15-passenger
van. The intent of the multi purpose room, that will be used for
basketball, volleyball, banquets. Our existing facility has a
social hall that accommodates approximately 180 to 200 people. We
have two to three dinners a year where we would get as much as 250
to 300 people and the thought is to utilize that space for
banquets. Typically they are during the day in the afternoon or
early evening. We don't have drinking at the facility and in most
cases most functions will be done by 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m.
Mr. McCann: There are a couple of things with this petition. Number one, the
people have many, many, legitimate concerns in regard to this
proposal. However, with private property you have the right to
develop it. You can't expect someone to own property and pay taxes
on it and keep it as park land for the people in the back.
However, we as the Planning Commission do have the duty to try to
limit the impact that property will have on its neighbors.
Therefore, I am going to recommend that we table this for further
study to look at the possibility of berms, reduce the lighting,
reduce the amount of parking, to try to lessen the impact as much
as possible on the neighbors but allow the rights of ownership for
New the church and its people and hopefully come up with a project
everyone can live with. Therefore I recommend that we table this
until the meeting of February 1st.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#1-7-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1993 on Petition 93-11-2-27 by DeMattia & Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an
existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
93-11-2-27 until the study meeting of February 1, 1994.
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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
N..
13212
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-2-28
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc, requesting waiver use approval to
construct a full service restaurant with a drive-up window on the west
side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
"or
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 waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found. We have also received a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to the site plan as
submitted.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner present?
Mark Drane: I am an architect with T. Rogvoy & Associates, 6735 Telegraph,
Bloomfield Hills. I am representing Boston Chicken. I am sure
most of you are familiar with the Boston Chicken concept. What we
are proposing at this site is a bit different than what you have
seen. We are actually having seating inside the restaurant and we
are also proposing a drive-thru. We are a small outlot in front of
a fairly large shopping center. We are proposing to share parking
on that shopping center and if there are any questions, I will be
happy to answer them.
Mr, Morrow: Did you come with a site plan tonight?
(Mr. Drane presented the site plans)
Mr. Tent: Can you go over the signage that you are proposing for the
building? Is that part of your proposal now?
Mr. Drane: We are proposing one ground sign.
Mr. Tent: Is that a call-back?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they have to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Tent: What about the roof-top mechanical units? How are you going to
shield them?
Mr. Drane: We have raised the parapet. You will not see the units.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, with this proposal what percent of business do you think will
he at the drive-in window?
Mr. Drane: We have opened a test market in Plymouth on Ann Arbor Road. We are
doing about 15% of our business, which is opposed to other
fast-food restaurants which do 50% to 55% drive-thru business.
13213
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have an exit and entrance so people can't come the
wrong way off the street?
Mr. Drane: This is a narrow throat here for exiting only. It would be clearly
marked.
\r.
Mr. Alanskas: One way only?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Looking at your plan here to enter the restaurant to go to the
drive-in window you have to enter from the far north driveway,
which is closest to Seven Mile. Is that correct?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Have you been out there between three and six o'clock? What
happens when people are trying to make a left hand turn on Seven
Mile. It is going to create. a problem. It will be the same
problem we have at Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. My question is
I am curious about two things. Are you telling me this is the
second drive-thru Boston Chicken you have in the metropolitan
Detroit area?
Mr. Drane: We have opened one in Clarkston, Michigan and the drive-thru in
Plymouth. They are the only two drive-thrus.
Mr. LaPine: Isn't it true that the biggest majority of your business is take
home?
Sm. Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That makes me believe the biggest majority of your business, most
people are going to call up and order and are going to go through
that drive-thru. Isn't that true?
Mr. Drane: People don't call in orders.
Mr. LaPine: If that is true, what do you do drive around and wait for your
orders and you show on your plan you only have a backup for six
vehicles.
Mark Thomas, BC of Detroit, 315 S. Woodward, Royal Oak: Today what has been
happening, as Mark said we have one open in Plymouth that we are
actually using the drive-thru. Our experience is 15% of our
business is going through the drive-thru. It is true and even
moreso in our Plymouth store that the majority of our business is
take out. We have probably 13 to 20 seats in the Plymouth store so
again two-thirds of our business is take out. Our concept is such
that visually we have the deli cases with our food displayed, with
our hot food and our cold food, which change seasonally. It is
much more convenient for the customer to come in and be able to
view the product and see what they want and we assemble it very
quickly and they are in and out in three, four or five minutes even
13214
with a line. We have experienced at Plymouth from the time you are
at the order board to the time your order is actually assembled and
out about two to two and a half minutes. Again, the business is
held at 15% only through the drive-thru.
Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me the drive-thru is similar to the Rally's
hamburger where you drive around and there is a menu up there and
you call in and then you drive up to the window and pick up
your order and it only takes two minutes?
Mr. Thomas: It only takes two to two and a half minutes from the time you
order. We are actually able to get people in and out quicker than
the typical fast feeder because our product is already prepared and
from the time of order it only needs to be assembled.
Mr. LaPine: At this location you show six cars you could stack and I could
conceivably see one more car you could stack before you get into
the driveway where you have parking. That is the maximum number of
cars that would be there lined up for the drive-thru?
Mr. Thomas: I don't know that we will end up stacking that many cars based upon
today's volume of drive-thru business and the quickness which we
are able to get the people's orders out.
Mr. Drane: I would also like to address Mr. LaPine's concern about left-hand
turns into the site. Because the site is inter-connected, I think
it is going to be learned by the customer that they can come in. at
any of these other points throughout the shopping center and still.
circulate around to the drive-thru. We also think most of our
customers will park here because it is very close to the front
`n door, which is the least used parking of the shopping center.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, concerning the signage, if it goes to ZBA, it will have
to come back to us?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Drane: Maybe I could get a clarification. We thought the package
conformed to the sign ordinance. I thought we were allowed one
sign in front and we are also proposing a monument sign. We
believed that met the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Nagy: You are over. You have two signs. The one on the canopy, which is
also considered a sign. For those reasons you are over.
Mr. Alanskas: I think the biggest concern we did have was in regards to the
traffic problems and parking but being you had that back wall
taken down and opened to the back parking lot, people can learn to
come in various ways which will help alleviate the congestion and I
think it will work out pretty well.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr>
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on. Petition 93-12-2-28 closed.
13215
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
111-8-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-2-28 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant with a
'Saw drive-up window on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile
Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-12-2-28 be approved subject to variances being granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a deficient front yard and deficient off-street
parking and to the following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 11-18-93 prepared by T.
Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevations marked Sheet 6 dated 11-18-93 prepared
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. Architects (not including any
signage), which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 11-18-93 prepared by
Ralph L. Nunez, Landscape Architect is hereby approved and the
landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general.
waiver use standards and requirements as modified by the Zoning
'141111. Board of Appeals as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance 11543.
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed use will provide an additional commercial service
which will draw customers to the adjacent shopping center.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
043, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Engebretson, Frandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-2-29
by Richard Bame requesting waiver use approval to allow outdoor storage
of contractor's materials and equipment on property located on the west
side of Beatrice between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the
`'� Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
13216
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 waiver use proposal. We have also
`nw received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the proposed site plan
does not indicate the following required elements: a) A protective
wall along the West and South property lines where this property
abuts property zoned residential. b) A fence on the other two
sides of the property enclosing the storage lot. Please note that
the fence may NOT be installed in the required 50' front yard
setback. c) a 20' greenbelt screening the stored materials from
the adjoining residential property. d) Pavement (at least the areas
proposed to be used for driveways and vehicle parking). They state
the omission of any of these elements will require the approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals. Also in our file is a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating their office has no objections to this site
plan as submitted.
This department also received a letter from Myron Boksha of M. C.
Carbide Tool Company stating he wishes to express his objection to
the proposed petition. He states as owner of lot #102, 29811 Eight
Mile Road they have a common lot line on his south border. He
cannot imagine any outdoor storage of equipment or materials being
in accordance with our beautification program of Eight Mile
Rd-North Livonia Area. He has invested over $20,000.00 in
landscaping, paving and site improvements. His tenant. American
Speedy Printing, more than doubled that amount at the City's
itemw demands that North Livonia must upgrade its look. He ends by
stating he would not appreciate any outdoor storage anywhere near
his property after the efforts of himself and his tenant.
We have also received a letter from Elizabeth M. Falk who indicates
backyards are great places to have cookouts, lie in the sun, and
let your children run, but not in my backyard. My backyard is
right next to all of my neighbor's leftover industrial equipment.
He owns the empty lot next door and stores all of his leftover
material along the fenceless property line. This material makes my
backyard a very unsafe place for my child to play. Not only a
neighborhood eyesore, but a breeding ground for mice and other
small animals. The leftover materials continue to stay despite my
many discussions to persuade my neighbor to clean up. She goes on
to say this poses a potential hazard for children that wander into
that area and the leftover equipment site is the perfect breeding
ground for small animals such as mice, rats, raccoons and skunks.
Despite my numerous talks to persuade my neighbor to clean up the
mess remains. She would love for the site to be cleaned up
immediately so some day her backyard will be a great place to have
cookouts, lie in the sun and let her children run.
Similarly we have another letter from Livonia residents Tohnni and
Louis Giannotti of 20425 Beatrice stating they are submitting a
13217
letter in their absence. They feel that allowing this man to turn
this lot into a storage area would be disastrous! ! ! The lot is
already an eyesore and a dangerous area. They ask please do not
allow our neighborhood to be ruined. We all have small children on
this block and would like to see this area cleaned up. We all work
., hard to try to keep our yards clean and tidy. This lot owner is a
resident further south of our street. I wonder how he would feel
if this was next door to his house.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Judy Bruce stating she is a
resident of 20507 Beatrice. Not only would she like to see the
miscellaneous waste cleaned up she does not want to see this lot
turned into a material storage lot. She states she has three young
children and this waste piled up creates a dangerous "playground".
It is an accident waiting to happen.
Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your reasons for
this request.
Ted Berlinghof, the architect from Detroit, Michigan and Richard Bame, 20251
Beatrice, Livonia:
Mr. Berlinghof: Richard is the owner of this property. This piece of property is
zoned M-1 industrial. Mr. Bame has a construction company. He
would like to utilize his lot to park his two construction vehicles
and store some of his construction materials. These materials will
be new construction materials not left over materials, no garbage,
no trash containers and no raccoons or skunks. The intention is to
be able to utilize his lot for storing his vehicles. We are not
talking about earth movers. We are not talking about graders. We
\r. have a three cubic yard dump truck and a flatbed truck which is a
one-ton truck. This is slightly larger than a pickup truck. We
take exception to the people who say that this is an unsighly lot
with eyesores. I submitted a sketch to the City of Livonia showing
the lot heavily landscaped presently. It has been well maintained
by Mr. Bame. There is a nine-foot high lilac hedge along the rear
of the lot, along the north of the lot, which is facing the Speedy
Printing. There is a nine-foot high row of bushes and trees and
even on the east elevation, which is right on Beatrice Street we
have a seven foot high set of bushes. We have a photograph here we
would like to submit.
Mr. Morrow: You heard Inspection indicate that two of your property lines
require a masonry wall to shield yourself from the residential.
You also heard that you would be precluded from building any sort
of a fence along the front yard. How does your client feel about
that before we even get into whether or not he wants to pursue
this?
Mr. Bame: I was in front of the board three to four years ago to put up a
building there. I wanted a five-foot variance and was turned down.
As far as putting a wall there, I can do that. I have to have some
place to park my trucks. I bought that property to use it. The
people that are making a complaint in the back when they bought in
there that property was industrial. They had it rezoned to
residential. Now they want everyone to move out. They knew it was
`"r' industrial when they moved in there.
13218
Mr. Morrow: We are not disputing your current zoning. You are looking for a
waiver, which is a more intense use than what the original
industrial was for. If you wanted to go in there with an
industrial use, I suppose you could go right ahead and do it. That
is where we are coming from so that line of argument, we are not
disputing the industrial portion, it is only you are intensifying
the use.
Mr.Berlinghof: When we did try to submit for an industrial building on this site
it was noted to us that Livonia requires a certain number of square
footage for an industrial site and that lot, which is zoned
industrial, was too small. After the rear yard and the side yard
and the front yard setbacks were allotted we had about a 15 x 45
foot building, which is an unbuildable or unusable space and it was
turned down when we asked for a small variance so we were not able
to pursue that project back then. Mr. Bame would simply like a
place to put his vehicles and new construction materials. He says
he would be willing to put in screen walls and fences. We would be
happy to modify the plan for that.
Mr. Morrow: There was something about the driveways. How did that read John?
Mr. Nagy: The plan did not indicate any pavement. The areas proposed to be
used for driveways and vehicle parking were supposed to be paved.
Mr. Morrow: So you are indicating that should this be approved you would be
prepared to work with Inspection to bring the lot up to speed. I
don't know how you will secure your property. You would not be
allowed to put a fence on your front yard. That is another matter.
We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone present
wishing to speak for or against this petition.
Catherine Sullivan: I am Treasurer of the North-Central Livonia Civic Association
and I live at 20285 Milburn. I got the letter from the Planning
Commission and I went to the people on Beatrice and they were
opposed to this waiver use of a outdoor storage. We have been
trying right along to get rid of outdoor storage and also to have
the wall where the industrial line meets the residential line. It
is supposed to be compulsory to have a wall.
Mr. Tent: Catherine, I know you have been very effective in your organization
and you have done a great job in keeping things looking beautiful
out in that area. You heard the comments the Inspection Department
made. If this operation were to go ahead and put up a protective
wall and landscaped it the way it was intended to shield whatever
they are doing and clean up that area and put cement in, etc. would
that satisfy the requirements of what you are looking at because
this is industrial? Would that satisfy you or are you completely
opposed to this?
Mrs. Sullivan: We have been trying to get rid of the outdoor storage but it is
supposed to be compulsory for that wall to be put up between
residential and industrial. The outdoor storage isn't very nice
and we have been trying to keep that Eight Mile Road area nice.
13219
Mr. Tent: You have been doing a great job.
Jerry Sisco, 20490 Louise: I own Lots 106 and 107. Lot 106 backs up to the lot in
question. I bought my house in 1989. In January of 1990 I got a
violation notice from the City for storing fire wood on the ground
and having a rat wall without a shed so I dismantled the rat wall
and elevated the fire wood. One of the main reasons I did it is I
figured if I took care of the violations I had maybe I could get
after the City to get Lot 101 cleaned up. In March 1980 I talked
to a Mr. Klee from the Inspection Department. He told me he was
aware of the problem and trying to get the lot cleaned up. Over
the years from time to time I have called the Inspection Department
to get something done about getting that lot cleaned up. In April
of last year I took pictures and took them into Inspection to show
them what the lot looked like. I have the same pictures here if
you would like to look at them. I am against this petition for
three reasons. I don't think the lot is big enough for storing
materials and equipment. Second of all, I am in the building
trades myself. I have worked in the building trades for the past
20 years. I am an operating engineer and I know what construction
yards look like. Every time you do a job you have left over
materials that always comes back to the yard. It is something you
don't use all the time but it is too valuable to throw away so you
keep it and it gets piled up in the yard. A piece of equipment
breaks down, it goes back to the yard. The main reason I am
against it is even if you grant the petition with the ordinances
the City has, if there is no one there to enforce the ordinance,
then it doesn't do any good. It has been 4 1/2 years since I moved
into my house and that lot still looks the same as it did 4 1/2
years ago.
Thomas Voyles, 20439 Beatrice: I own the home that is two doors down from this
proposed site. I would like to reiterate what all the residents
have said, mainly once it becomes a site for construction
equipment, first of all there are other lots in there that are
industrial where people do have trucks and there is enough truck
traffic on this street as it is. I am awakened every morning by
the trucks starting up every morning. I just think if you allow
someone else to bring more trucks down this street, not only will
it deteriorate the road but the noise is going to increase
tremendously. Like the one resident said the appearance of the lot
now is not fabulous and if it becomes a storage yard for
construction equipment, it is going to just get progressively worse.
There will be no enforcement of how he can use it. That is a
given. The property values, obviously no one is going to want to
live next to that. There are a lot of children that play in the
area. You get a construction site that has materials you are going
to have varmints running around. It will just snowball and get
progressively worse. I would just hope you guys deny this waiver.
Mrs. Sullivan: That is why we would like to see the outside storage done away with
because they have so much stuff left from this job and that job and
the less outside storage the better.
13220
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question to the petitioner. How long have you lived on
Beatrice?
Mr. Bame: About 15 years. I have been on that piece of property for about 12
years.
X01 Mr. Alanskas: All that time you have not complied with the regulations?
Mr. Bame: I lived down the street 15 years.
Mr. Berlinghof: Mr. Bame has not parked his vehicles on this lot until very
recently.
Mr. Alanskas: I know but it has always been in this condition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-12-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-9-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-2-29 by Richard Bame requesting waiver use
approval to allow outdoor storage of contractor's materials and
equipment on property located on the west side of Beatrice between Eight
Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 93-12-2-29 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
Slaw waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 16.11b(1),
16.11b(2) and 16.22b(5) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to
required fencing, landscaping, and a required greenbelt.
3) That the proposed use is incompatible with adjacent residential
uses in the area.
4) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-7-3
by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of
the City of Livonia, entitled the Master School and Park Plan, to delete
existing and proposed designation of property located south of Ann Arbor
Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31 and to also amend Part VII of
the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use
Plan, so as to place a new land use designation on certain property
located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31.
13221
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence on this petition.
Mr. Morrow: This is a City Planning Commission petition, therefore I will go
directly to the audience.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-7-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-10-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts
of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City
of Livonia, having held a Public Hearing January 11, 1994 for the
purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia,
entitled the Master School and Park Plan and also Part VII of the Master
Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use Plan; Part V
of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master School
and Park Plan is hereby amended so as to delete the designation of
future park land of property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of
Newburgh Road in Section 31, and Part VII of the Master Plan of the City
of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use Plan, is hereby amended to
place a "Low Density Residential" designation on certain property
located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendments to the Master Plan will provide for
the use of the subject property for more realistic purposes.
fir. 2) That the City does not have the financial means to purchase and
develop the subject lands for public park purposes.
3) That this area of the City is currently well served with parks and
open space facilities.
4) That both the Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department
and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the subject
park site be removed from the Master School and Park Plan.
AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285
of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning
Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School
and Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by
reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning
Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment
shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning
Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of
Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Vice 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 Amended Petition
92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS.
13222
Mr. Morrow: John, is there any new correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter on November 17th from the petitioner
indicating that they wish to amend their petition to now request
office services in lieu of the previous request for research
`'or. engineering. That is the purpose for tonight is to report it out
and to consider a change from the RUFC zoning classification to
that of the office services as opposed to the initial request for
research engineering.
Mr. Morrow: So to begin with we will have to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
##1-11-94 RESOLVED that, Amended Petition 92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to
rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh
Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to
OS be taken from the table.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the petitioner.
Charles Tangora: I think you will recall about a year we were before you with a
rezoning petition to research development at that time. Mr. Dinan
had a user for the property, Cru Cam Corporation. When we got to
the Council, before we got to the public hearing Mr. Crute wrote a
letter through his attorney to the City saying because of the
'oar length of time that was occurring there he couldn't wait for the
approval and he went out and bought another building. Since that
time Mr. Dinan has had no other users for the research development
and decided not to go forth with that but would like to develop it
into offices. Mr. Ventura is Mr. Dinan's real estate agent and if
you have any questions that you want to ask Mr. Ventura, he is here
for that purpose.
Mr. Morrow: Is this a known tenant or is it going to be pretty much a John
Dinan office building?
Mr. Tangora: He doesn't have a user for the entire building. He normally builds
speculative buildings and he has been very successful in the City
of Livonia being able to occupy most of them. The most recent one
was at Merriman Road and before it was completed Municipal Risk
took the entire building.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
##1-12-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor
Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Amended Petition 92-10-1-24 be approved for the following reasons:
13223
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is more compatible to the future
uses contemplated for the City-owned Greenmead property.
"41111. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
compatible to the existing Victor V office building adjacent on the
west.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
11543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: Item number 10, Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision,
is off the agenda. It will remain on the table.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 675th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on November
30, 1993.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
``r it was
1i1-13-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 675th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on November 30, 1993 are
hereby approved.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application
by Vasilios Valkanos for the installation of a satellite dish antenna
for property at 29110 Five Mile Road in Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This unit is located in the Murningham Shopping Center, which is
located on the north side of Five Mile just east of Middlebelt.
The applicant occupies the rear unit in the building that houses
the Domino's Pizza in the front. They are proposing to install a 7
1/2 ft. in diameter satellite dish on the roof of their unit, which
would be over their unit. It would be approximately six feet from
the south edge of the unit and six feet from the east edge of their
unit.
Mr. Morrow: Anything new Scott since we last saw it?
Mr. Miller: They submitted a new drawing that shows that it will just be over
their unit.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
13224
#1-14-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit
Application by Vasilios Valkanos for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property at 29110 Five Mile Road in Section 13 subject
to the following condition:
Sow 1) That the Satellite Dish Application by Gust P. Mareskas, received
by the Livonia Planning Commission on 11/16/93, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it
will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-8-24
by Polaris Communications & Engineering, Inc. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna to the building
located at 28915 Seven Mile Road in Section 12.
``r Mr. Miller: This office complex is located on the southwest corner of Seven
Mile Road and Maplewood. They are proposing to locate a satellite
dish six foot in diameter to the rear of the office complex. It
will be approximately 15 feet high and should not be seen from
Seven Mile Road.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
##1-15-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-12-8-24 by Polaris Communications &
Engineering, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install
a satellite dish antenna to the building located at 28915 Seven Mile
Road in Section 12 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the Satellite Dish application by Polaris Communications &
Engineering Inc. , received by the Livonia Planning Commission on
12/1/93, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it
will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
13225
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-8-25
by Dean Coppa requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
`'a. of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to erect a free
standing awning on property located at 27975 Five Mile Road in Section
24.
Mr. Miller: This is the Carriage Car Wash located on the south side of Five
Mile Road between Inkster Road and Santa Anita Avenue. They are
proposing to locate an awning to the front of their building. It
will be a free standing awning at the exit of the car wash. This
awning was at one time located at the rear. They would like to now
locate it to the front. It is 20 feet long. It will not be
backlit or have any signage.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Coppa, I use your facility a lot and you do an excellent job.
You were before us not too long ago for an addition to your
building which I supported and there was some controversy about
that but we came to an agreement and it looks quite well. When did
you decide on this awning? Were you aware of the awning
requirement back then?
Mr. Coppa: We were aware about the setback ruling. Is that what you mean?
Mr. Tent: No, why didn't you submit this all at the same time because the
last time you were going for an addition and this could have been
one complete package.
Mr. Coppa: You are right. Basically it was due to funding. If we had enough
funds when we were done with the addition. Our main concern was
the addition at the entrance.
Mr. Tent: You could have submitted them both and gotten approval.
Mr. Coppa: This is something that came about afterwards. Most of our energy
and funds were put into the addition. This was something that was
almost a fallout from that. We wanted to utilize something that we
had invested in and we had seen that our competitors were either
built on zero frontage like Wonderland or had awnings such as the
$2.00 car wash on Middlebelt so we though that possibly we could
take advantage of possibly enhancing the front of our building
also and taking care of some of the safety conditions that we had
at the exit concerning the icing in the bad weather. It is
something that came out of the addition.
Mr. Tent: I have no quarrel with an awning in the front of your building.
They have a smaller one on Middlebelt Road that is very attractive.
You are talking about a 20 foot extension. I could support
something one-half that size. To me this reminds me of an entrance
to a yacht club or a cemetery where they put the big tent up. To
me I think it is overextending that piece of property. Would you
be amenable to putting a smaller awning up because then I could
support it. Otherwise I, as one Commissioner, couldn't support it.
Niro.
1.3226
Mr. Coppa: When we originally went before the Zoning Board we started out with
a 30 foot awning and they said in order to have proper setback we
would have to reduce it to a 20 foot awning. So we reduced it to a
20 foot awning. Now if you want us to go to a 10 foot awning, you
have to remember that this is 21 foot wide. It is not a narrow
Sir awning. It is a larger awning in width. If you want us to go to a
10 foot awning, we will but our preference is to utilize the 20
foot awning that we have proposed to you.
Mr. Tent: But you are amenable to going 10 foot shorter? I could support
something like that. Twenty I can't. Again, I want to preface
this by saying you are doing a great job.
Mr. Alanskas: I also go there quite often for my vehicles and one is a small S15
GMC truck and they are not that heavy. I even put 400 pounds of
sand back there for weight. I don't think a 10 foot awning would
take care of the problem you have because you have that slope
there. I see no problem with the 20 feet.
Mr. Coppa: The reason I was willing to go for the 10 feet, it was better than
nothing.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment. I have is the awning seems to be the bane of my
existence. They were using them as signs and we got that under
control. Now we are trying to use them as structures, building
extensions. I don't think whether or not you have that awning is
going to cure any problem with ice or water. Your problem is not
coming from above. It is coming from underneath the cars or off
the cars. I could support a smaller awning like Mr. Tent said. To
me it looks like it should be a building rather than an awning.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#1-16-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
93-12-8-25 by Dean Coppa requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
erect a free standing awning on property located at 27975 Five Mile Road
in Section 24, for the following reasons:
1) That the Site and Elevation Plan by Clifford N. Wright. Associates,
received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 12/3/93, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to with the additional condition the
awning not be more than 15 feet in length.
as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which were
required by the Zoning Board of Appeals) :
1) That the canopy is to be erected as presented and that the total
length shall be no more than approximately 15 feet;
2) The side of the canopy are to be used only during the winter months
for weather protection. These sides shall have clear sections for
visibility, with a small section of red vinyl to match the canopy;
3) At no time shall there be any signage, advertising or graphics on
the canopy.
13227
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 676th Regular Meeting
Public Hearings held on January 11, 1994 was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
r
\
James C. McCann, Secretary
\
ATTEST:.. �_ , ` .. \ ') .
Lee Morrow, Vice Chai an
jg
'41arr