HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-04-06 12753
MINUTES OF THE 662nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 6, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 662nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
`irey 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 the rehearing of
Petition 91-1-1-2 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property
located on the east side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and
Minton Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from PL and RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and explain your
proposal.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I am representing Phoenix Land Company on
this petition. I am sure you will recall approximately one and a
half years ago I was in front of you asking for the almost
identical petition with the exception of the northerly 160 feet of
this parcel of land. That was for Mr. Pink who has since turned it
over to Phoenix Land Company. At the same time Phoenix Land
12754
Company has bought all the parcels to the west and is now building
homes there. This parcel of land was acquired from the school, who
in turn have been given a number of sites to build homes with their
Manual Training Department. I think in the interim, because of the
'New long delay which was caused as to what would happen and what class
of road Stonehouse would be placed in, we have been on hold for
about a year and that is why the long delay. At this time we are
asking that we get permission to rezone this to R-1 and proceed
with 60 foot residential, single family lots.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, is Stonehouse on the north going to be cut through
all the way?
Mr. Roskelly: Stonehouse will go all the way through to West Chicago. At this
time Stonehouse has been completely improved in front of this
subject petition in view of the fact that they are constructing on
the west side.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
William Keefer, 37910 Minton: I have never been to one of these meetings before.
I am wondering what is the point of the meeting. This developer
has been allowed to clear this piece of property. I can't imagine
a developer investing money in a piece of property without some
knowledge that he is going to get what he wants as far as rezoning.
That is one thing I am wondering about. I am wondering if he is
going to develop the two lots north of my house. I am on the
corner of Minton and Stonehouse, the northwest corner. I want to
know if he is going to develop the two lots north of me.
Mr. Engebretson: This petition stops right at Minton.
Mr. Keefer: This gentleman here just asked if he is going to continue that
street through. At this time it is not.
Mr. Engebretson: Let me clarify that. He asked if he had any knowledge about
whether or not Stonehouse will go through. I suspect he is
probably referring to a Master Thoroughfare Plan. Would you say
that is right Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. With the exception of the east ten feet it has already been
dedicated to the City of Livonia. It has always been planned to
have that road implemented between Chicago and Joy Road.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it is that knowledge sir that he is referring to not any
special knowledge of any specific plans that he or anyone else has
in mind. The only thing under discussion tonight is that area
surrounded by that heavy black line and crosshatched. I would like
to say sir that the issue you raised initially regarding the
clearing of the land, this petitioner has the right to propose this
development but he has no guarantee that he will get it but at the
same time he has the right to clear that land as the owner of that
property much the same as you have the right to cut down trees
12755
on your property or move dirt, etc. I am just trying to make you
feel better about the process. He is certainly within his rights
to rearrange things on his property. I just wanted to address your
original comment.
` u.
Mr. Keefer: That is my only concern right now. I am concerned with what he is
going to do with Stonehouse Street where it dead ends right now but
like you say that is not the concern of this meeting tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: Stonehouse is developed to the extent it is planned to be
developed as far as I know at the moment. There would be a need to
develop it further if and when there was any development across the
street from you and further on to the north.
Mr. Keefer: I don't know if this meeting is to address this question but if
that street is not put through when the rest of this development is
done, is he going to restore that street to the way it was?
Mr. Engebretson: Are you talking about the brand new street that is right in front
of this property?
Mr. Keefer: To the east of my house.
Mr. Engebretson: It was my impression that was a newly paved street.
Mr. Keefer: They paved to the corner of Minton and Stonehouse. This is what
concerns me. I am left with a mud hole right now. I have had it
all winter and I am not going to live with it much longer.
Mr. Engebretson: I would suggest to you that you may want to petition the City
`'r Council to have that street paved. They go through a very lengthy
process to accomplish those things but that is not within the realm
of this Planning Commission.
Mr. Keefer: One of my concerns is he has come in and has changed the whole
grade on that road next to my house and the drains and everything
else and that is what I am stuck with right now.
Mr. Engebretson: Let's let him address that.
Mr. Roskelly: To answer a couple of Mr. Keefer's questions hopefully
successfully. The reason for the cleaning and grubbing that occurred
was at the specific time Stonehouse, which was a paper road up until
last year, when we went to clean and grub from Joy Road north to put in
the improvements on Stonehouse, we had the people and the equipment
there, and in hopeful anticipation of having this approved, at that time
we asked the contractor to also engage in cleaning that specific area
that was under zoning at this point. To answer your second question as
to the lots north of you, yes Mr. Schafer is here from the development
company and he will be building on those two lots. He will be extending
Stonehouse improvements as far to the north as he owns any of the lots,
which will be beyond your home and beyond the next two sites to the
west and perhaps even further.
Mr. Keefer: That answers one of my questions.
12756
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
\.. it was
#4-72-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on the rehearing of Petition 91-1-1-2 by William Roskelly
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Stonehouse
Avenue between Joy Road and Minton Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 31 from PL and RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-1-1-2 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for residential lot
sizes in keeping with the existing lots in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the improvement
of Stonehouse Avenue.
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.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to suggest that without objection, for the sake of
preservation of time, that we move item number 9, which is related
to this item, which is a preliminary plat, move that forward.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Forest Oaks Subdivision proposed to be located on the east
side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and Minton Street in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
their office has no objection to this development. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department
has no objection to the plan as submitted.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please step forward.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I think it is self-explanatory. I would
indicate that minimum lot size for R-1 is 60' x 120' . These
specific lots are minimum of 61 ' x 140' . We have provided, if you
12757
look on Northfield Drive presently there is a sidewalk and we have
left a public access for a sidewalk to the school, which was
requested on our last proposal a year or so ago. This, of course,
will have the improvements, be properly graded, properly drained
'New and certainly all the clean up will be taking place in and around
this property as soon as the weather breaks.
Mr. Alanskas: How wide is that walkway going to be?
Mr. Roskelly: It is an existing six foot walk and we will have a ten foot wide
walkway. That will be dedicated, not as an easement but as a
portion of the school property.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, the street is asphalt. Is that correct?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Is it going to have curbs?
Mr. Roskelly: No. This was one of the items that came before Council and that is
why it was delayed over a year. The fact that Stonehouse has been
developed in patchy areas and it used a class pavement that was
strictly a crown simply because the storm water situation, if we
went into curb and gutter with a restrictive storm sewer runoff, we
would have quite a problem. The open ditches and culverts are able
to retain or detain certain storm waters during the case of a 20
year or a 50 year storm. Street Roads and Plats, Committee of the
City Council, we have gone through this entire exercise with Mr.
Galindo, Mr. Clark, Engineering Department, and we have made quite
a thorough investigation and the Council agreed that it should be
�.. Class 4, which is crown with no curbs or gutters.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be sidewalks?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes there are.
Mr. LaPine: The homes that are to be built will be a combination of ranches and
colonials?
Mr. Roskelly: Ranches, colonials and cape cods.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Roskelly, what is the price range of the homes?
Mr. Roskelly: I may need some help on this.
Steve Schafer: They will range from $130,000 to $150,000. The same thing as we
are currently selling now at Golden Ridge.
Mr. Tent: Will they be solid brick?
Mr. Schafer: We are doing face brick right now with three sides of vinyl and we
would like to carry that through the neighborhood. We are
currently building the homes now in that fashion. We do have a
number of very attractive elevations which we offer.
12758
Mr. Roskelly: If I may address Mr. Tent, if I relate to my Western Golf, we
attempted a full brick home and for some reason, I think with the
building materials you have now, I think of the 35 homes we have up
'`► there, there are only four that are fully brick. They seem to want
to break away from the fortress type home, especially a colonial
would not be all brick in my aesthetic view. I believe with stucco
and siding you get a much more attractive home, especially when you
are building on 60, 70 and 80 foot lots. Some of these may be but
it will be upon request that they will be all brick but they will
be brick in the front.
Mr. Tent: You will give them the option?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. Tent: What is the square footage of these homes?
Mr. Schafer: The ranches would range from 1430 square feet to 1755 and the
colonials from 1550 up to 2100 square feet.
Mr. Tent: You will have basements?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Two car garages?
Mr. Schafer: Yes, attached.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval
for Forest Oaks Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-73-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Forest Oaks Subdivision proposed
to be located on the east side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and
Minton Street in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Preliminary
Plat approval for Forest Oaks Subdivision be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That no reporting City department has objected to approval of the
Preliminary Plat.
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat provides for a good land use
solution to the development of the subject property.
12759
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
\w. Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation. Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the rehearing of
Petition 92-10-1-24 by William Fried for Kevin Crute & John Dinan
requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke
Street between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from RUFC to RE.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: With regard to the matter of the rehearing, our office has received
a copy of a letter submitted to the City Council in connection with
this petition by the attorney representing Kevin Crute, one of the
signatures on the petition, indicating that his client is
withdrawing his name from the rezoning Petition #92-10-1-24.
Because of time constraints he must have a place where his new
equipment may be located by late fall of 1993. An evaluation of
time to build after all the approvals are obtained is too long.
Therefore, he has decided to purchase an existing vacant facility
on Schoolcraft in Livonia, which he will be able to occupy by
September 1993 if his proposed purchase is consummated. They thank
`t.► the Council and Planning Commission for their time in considering
this proposal and that was signed by William C. Fried, the attorney
representing Kevin R. Crute.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, was there a date on that letter that Mr. Crute submitted
to the Planning Department?
Mr. Nagy: It was submitted to the City Council and it was dated March 31,
1993.
Mr. LaPine: Does that mean, John, that he doesn't want to proceed with this
rezoning?
Mr. Nagy: All this means is that he is withdrawing is his name from the
petition. The property owner, Mr. Dinan, continues to want to
pursue the matter.
Mr. LaPine: One of the reasons I was for this proposal was for the type of
operation. If it is changing, my position might change so I would
want to hear from the petitioner as to what is going to happen.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, then the concerns of Mr. Johnson of the immediately
western property may still be in effect. Since the letter we have
that had addressed the concerns is dated February 22, then I am
supposing Mr. Johnson might want to be aware of this change.
12760
Mr. Nagy: There is a representative from Victor here.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with Mr. LaPine. I was in favor of this but we will have
to wait and see what Mr. Dinan's plans are.
John Dinan, 11725 Merriman: This was a joint venture with Mr. Crute and myself to
develop this for a research development and the public hearing
process seemed to run a little longer than we originally
anticipated when we formulated the original petition early in the
year. There was a technicality of 15 feet on each side of the
property that we left out to insure a greenbelt and City Council
felt it should have been incorporated with the original petition so
it was referred back to this board and we lost probably another two
months. One of the problems Mr. Crute had was that he had ordered
this equipment and he wouldn't have any place to house it if we
didn't have the building erected in time so he opted to take an
existing building so at least he would be in operation when this
equipment arrived. We still plan on this type of development for
the area due to the fact that the property, because of the
wetlands, is very restrictive as to its use. Secondly, we are
immediately adjacent to a four-story, high-rise office building and
this seems like a logical transition from the high-rise to
high-tech type use. We are planning on contacting similar type
users as Mr. Crute to develop a plan that would be acceptable to
the City but we can't go ahead without having the property in place
as far as the zoning goes. I might add that I met with Mr.
Johnson and his associate and partner and we had developed an
agreement between the two of us to insure that proper screening,
aesthetics, elevations, etc. would be in keeping with the
neighborhood. We don't want to build anything that would not be
attractive or be a detriment to the surrounding property. We also
own properties on St. Martins directly south of this so we have an
interest too in the fact that we would like this property to be of
the top grade that we normally build throughout the community. As
I said, it was just the time element here. We plan on proceeding
with the development and I think it will be something that will be
attractive and compatible with the neighborhood. I could answer
any particular questions that you had.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, we cannot condition zoning. Correct?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: It would be my interpretation the City could not rely on this
agreement between yourself and Victor Corporate Park. That is an
agreement between yourselves and the City would not be able to rely
on this.
Mr. Dinan: The City would be able to rely on the Planning Commission's review
of the site plan and development.
Mr. McCann: You would agree, because I know the type of developer you are in
the City, that it is appropriate for research and engineering where
the right type of person goes in there. One of the things this
12761
letter does is limit it to 30% of the total floor area of the
building to manufacturing or research testing. That is something
• the City could not enforce. As a matter of fact, if you
transferred the property, it would be difficult for you to enforce
it, possibly with deed restrictions or something you may be able
to. You don't have any proposals at this point?
Mr. Dinan: No, other than the concept.
Mr. McCann: It is a good concept.
Mr. Dinan: I can't pinpoint the exact size of the building or the exact
research aspect of it.
Mr. McCann: You would agree this would not be a typical area in the City for
any type of hard industrial type of research and engineering. I
guess my questions are going to what type of guarantees can we put
here at this time?
Mr. Dinan: I think you have to rely on the fact I have entered into this
agreement with Victor.
Mr. McCann: That is fine for Victor Park if they decide to enforce it. The
City can't enforce it.
Mr. Dinan: I understand that but they have a big investment in the area and
there is no reason they wouldn't enforce it or no reason why I
wouldn't live up to the agreement.
Mr. McCann: I understand that but unfortunately things change. I guess my
Nifty question is why is this premature? If you do come in with a
development, I would be more than happy to look at it. I was
looking very positively on this development but I knew what we were
getting and we had certain restrictions being built right into the
site plan at the same time. In this case, we won't have that
without your partner's development that you were looking at.
Mr. Dinan: That is true but you will have to realize when you rezone property,
it is the use of the property, it is not necessarily the exact
building to be built on the property.
Mr. McCann: That is exactly what scares me. We don't have any control over it
if we rezone it right now to research and engineering.
Mr. Dinan: You certainly will have a lot of control. Number one, the site
plan has to be approved.
Mr. McCann: We cannot condition the site plan on the type of use. I am not
sure that property is proper for research. I am not trying to be
argumentative. I am trying to give you the opportunity to address
what I see as a problem. Please understand I am not trying to be
argumentative or am I trying to predetermine this before I have
heard all the facts but this is what I see as a problem.
12762
Mr. Dinan: We have several properties in the community that have been zoned
primarily office and these were rezoned based on the fact we were
going to build an office. Then we go through the procedure once we
get the financing in place, etc. and submit a plan to the City.
`o. Normally we don't submit a firm plan before the property is zoned
because you may not have a tenant or you may not have the financing
in place.
Mr. McCann: Wouldn't you think research and engineering in this particular
location might be slightly unusual?
Mr. Dinan: I think there is a broader market for this high-tech type of use
than if we just went to general office.
Mr. McCann: I think it is much more usable. I am just saying the location is
unusual.
Mr. Dinan: It blends itself to a campus type use.
Mr. McCann: One more question. It appears this was signed by Raymond Hildreth
on behalf of Victor Park. Is that correct?
Mr. Dinan: He is one of the partners.
Mr. McCann: This agreement was drafted, I assume, under the presumption that
you were going ahead with the site plan and company that was going
to go in there. Have you advised them of the change?
Mr. Dinan: I just received the notice the same time John did so Victor has not
been contacted. I do plan on contacting them but their agreement
`y with me really is over and above the fact that Crute was going to
be part of the partnership because they had a lot of built-in
safeguards no matter who goes in there. We have a 100 foot
greenbelt to the west, certain percentage of research compared to
general office aspect so there are a lot of built-in safeguards
that we have already agreed to over and above what the City would
do.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Dinan, had the petition gone forward on schedule, would you
have been able to build the building in time to accommodate Mr.
Crute?
Mr. Dinan: If everything had fallen in place.
Mr. Morrow: Just so I may become a better Planning Commissioner, what was the
problem with the 15 feet restriction to insure you a greater
greenbelt on your parcel?
Mr. Dinan: The 15 feet was a technicality. We had originally left 15 feet on
each side to build in a greenbelt.
Mr. Morrow: Then apparently that was bad planning?
Mr. Dinan: I think it was strictly a technical thing because we ended up with
a little isolated strip.
12763
Mr. Morrow: Which wouldn't have been developed anyway. So I guess what we are
saying is you lost a tenant because of land they wanted to rezone
RE rather than leave it in its natural state. Is that correct?
Mr. Dinan: We felt it gave us a built-in buffer.
Mr. Morrow: I think the Planning Commission concurred in that. I am trying to
justify some zoning. I have the same concerns as Mr. McCann. We
were bringing this along based on what we felt was going in there
and now you are asking us to come through with the same zoning but
with a big question mark as to what it is going to be there other
than some conditions Mr. McCann eloquently said we really can't
enforce. Those are the concerns I have. I would have liked to see
the use you had go in there. I guess the good news is he is still
in Livonia.
Mr. Dinan: The only thing I would like to add, leaving the property zoned the
way it is now is not very logical for two reasons, because of the
proximity of the high-rise offices right adjacent to it plus the
existence of the wetlands that curtail any residential development.
So if you want the property to just lay there fallow and vacant,
you can leave it as it is. What we are trying to do is to develop
the property so it becomes a viable use in the City. We feel this
concept, that you all agreed to earlier, is a good approach and
that is why we are willing to enter into an agreement with the
Victor people, which was very restrictive. If you look at the
conditions they were quite restrictive, probably a lot more so than
the Planning Commission would require when we came in for site plan
approval. What we are trying to do is develop the property in a
logical and compatible way so we don't end up with a vacant lot.
`w.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Dinan, the letter that was dated March 31, 1993 when were you
aware of that letter?
Mr. Dinan: Yesterday.
Mr. Tent: So you haven't had a chance to do anything else except to come here
and plead your case.
Mr. Dinan: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: Being that you do own the property in the area, did you have anyone
in mind? Has anybody approached you about this particular location
relative to this type of operation?
Mr. Dinan: To be honest, Mr. Crute contacted me originally.
Mr. Tent: There is no one waiting to pick up the land?
Mr. Dinan: I couldn't honestly say I have someone.
Mr. Tent: You own the property?
Mr. Dinan: Yes.
12764
Mr. Tent: You say it has been vacant for a long time, which a lot of the
property there has been vacant.
Mr. Dinan: The property has sat there a long time.
Mr. Tent: There are acres and acres sitting there looking for a developer to
come in and bring something that would be compatible to the area.
My comment is, at this point, I would rather have the land
developed and have something come in that would be an asset in the
area. My reasons for approving this petition was for Mr. Crute.
He came in with a plan. He would, in my opinion, fit right into
that location and now it is a brand new ballgame. We are starting
from square one again. That is where I am coming from. I kind of
wish you had someone in mind that you were going to bring in with a
plan. Mr. McCann covered my comments a hundred percent. I feel
exactly as he did.
Mr. Dinan: That is true. I don't have a firm deal like we did previously but,
again, we are going by concept and not individual development. We
think we can probably come in with somebody in the future but I
can't tie it down to an exact time.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Tent addressed most of my questions. I did have one other. Do
you anticipate any difficulty in marketing this as research and
engineering?
Mr. Dinan: I think it has a much better chance of marketing under that
classification than if it were general office. We have several
office buildings within the community here and although most of our
'tor buildings are pretty well filled up, the market is not as strong as
it was three to four years ago. I wouldn't go in there and
build an office building that was speculation under the present
economic situation. I would prefer to have a user like Mr. Crute
where I could build it for him or if there is a change in the
economic conditions where I could go ahead and build a building
with some assurance I would find a tenant. In the meantime, if I
had it zoned, I could be more active in trying to market the
property.
Mr. Alanskas: I am sorry about the project because of the timetable but when the
site plan was here that building that you were going to build at
that time was very adequate and if you could say we want to put up
the same exact building at this time, I don't think you would have
a problem but to ask us now to just give us the zoning and I will
come back at a later date and see what I can put in there, I think
possibly a tabling resolution might be in order.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Dinan, as you well know, the Planning Commission recommended to
the Council the RE zoning. You went to the Council and they
weren't opposed to the RE zoning. Their objection was the two 15
foot parcels that they wanted included in the RE zoning. So you
know we are in favor of the rezoning to RE. What hardship does it
place on you sir if we just let everything sit the way it is now
until you try to market it as RE and bring in a client so we can
look at it. In the meantime nothing will happen to the property.
N..- If you are going to pursue a RE user, there is no hardship for us
to just table it until you come in with some new client.
12765
Mr. Dinan: I am not adverse to that. In other words, I think everyone is in
agreement that the property can't be used very logically as
residential because of the conditions and you don't want to buy a
pig-in-a-poke with the research development concept. I am not
adverse to giving it some time to see what we could do out there in
the market place and then come in with a more firm commitment.
Mr. LaPine: If you find it can't be marketed for that after a period of time,
you might find someone who might want a small office.
Mr. Dinan: As long as we have some flexibility, I am not adverse to the
tabling.
Mr. Morrow: On additional comment. We hear so much today the term high-tech
and I guess if we asked each Commissioner here what that meant,
they would all come up with a different answer. In conjunction
with this, I would like the Chairman to, at some point in time,
bring this ordinance back and take a look at it to see if it needs
any current updating as it relates to some of the concerns we had.
Maybe we can come up with a little more restrictive zoning in
high-tech as it relates to what goes on as far as the industrial
use and what percent of square foot.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dinan, I think it is important that you have heard from
everyone except me and I would like to send you the message that I
am very supportive of what you are proposing to do back there;
however, because, as you know, the zoning can't be conditioned to
give protection against the various things that we were concerned
about, and because the RE zoning provides for the height of the
building to be defined, at least in part, based on the setback of
`.. the building, and based further on the fact that some of the
residential neighbors on St. Martins were comfortable with a
two-story building but they would be uncomfortable with a building
higher than that, and also taking into consideration that is a very
deep lot, and if you could find some way to get around that wetland
problem and locate a building way to the rear, you could
theoretically put up a very tall building. I guess my point is I
believe our best resolution here is to table this. If you find a
user, we can fire it up and get it on the agenda in 3, 4 or 5 days
notice. We could give notice to those neighbors that had an
interest before, not only Victor but Mr. Markwardt and others
there. I don't think your position is hurt at all by doing that.
I think a strong enough message has been conveyed to you here
tonight, unless there is some other compelling evidence that
follows, where I think everyone can feel comfortable to move
forward and we can be very responsive to your needs if that need
should arise even with short notice.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Larry Wolotkiewicz, Property Manager of Victor V: That is the five-story office
building adjacent to this property. I wanted to say I appreciate
your acknowledging the letter that you all received and to raise
12766
the issue that that signed letter and agreement was specifically
drawn up with a specific purpose in mind with the proposed use and
site and building that was to go there and Hillman, at this point
in time, was unaware of this and Mr. Hildreth was unable to be here
and we will convey this information to him.
Mr. McCann: I would like to state an opinion and that is, as one Commissioner,
I would not say I don't believe residential could not be put in
there because I don't know. I haven't addressed it and I wouldn't
state that we agree it isn't appropriate. Secondly, I wouldn't
agree at this point that research and engineering is appropriate.
It is my personal opinion it is an inappropriate use at that
particular location. However, we had an independent type use that
was unique and I thought it might be appropriate. At this time I
still don't believe that particular use is an appropriate use for
this. I am willing to agree to a table to look at this further at
another time. Therefore, I would make a motion to table this to a
date uncertain.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
##4-74-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on the rehearing of Petition 92-10-1-24 by William Fried for Kevin
Crute & John Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Pembroke Street between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to RE, the City Planning Commission
+r,,, does hereby determine to table Petition 92-10-1-24 until date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-1-3
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution / 810-92,
proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road
between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
31 from C-1 to OS.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is this entire parcel owned by Ford Motor/UAW venture?
Mr. Nagy: No it is not. They own the west one half.
12767
Mr. Engebretson: Since we are the petitioner, I guess we will go to the audience
and see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this
proposal.
`No. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-1-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#f4-75-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 93-3-1-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #810-92, proposing to rezone property located on the
south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to OS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-3-1-3 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for one uniform
zoning district for the subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent the spread of
additional commercial uses along Ann Arbor Road and from further
encroachment into a residential area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
�.. ##543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is rehearing of
Petition 92-6-2-21 by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing
restaurant located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Seven
Mile Road and Vassar Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
their department has no objection to this proposal. Also in our
file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following
problems were found: 1) 82 parking spaces are provided. The
ordinance calls for 83 with 166 seats and 10 employees. 2) No
security lighting is provided for on the site plan. 3) Landscaping
is not shown at the Seven Mile entrance/exit. 4) The landscaping
along the west side of the "new" parking lot prohibits pedestrian
12768
traffic from cutting through bank lot and provides cover for would
be wrongdoers. 5) The present slope of the new lot would cause
water to run off onto Seven Mile Road, causing a traffic problem.
No catch basins are provided in the south 3/4 of the lot. 6) The
`vim„ sidewalk is too far for people to walk - a minimum of 320 feet from
the northeast corner of the "now" lot. During the on site
inspection, I observed several cars parking in the bank lot and the
Metro 25 Tire store and going to the petitioners place of business.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The ground sign for "American Lady Fitness Center" was not
removed when the building on this site was demolished. The Sign
Ordinance does not permit Big Boy to use this sign as a result of
the addition of this property to the existing restaurant site. A
violation notice was issued on March 11, 1993, to remove the sign
from the property or appeal its use to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
As of this date, neither has happened.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us what your
plans are.
Shaheen Boumaroun, 34695 Bridge, Livonia: I am with the engineering company hired
by Ansaras to do the work on their place.
Also present with Mr. Boumaroun was Victor Ansara, 33971 Bretton, Livonia.
Mr. Boumaroun: The questions that were addressed by Arthur Cheney of the Police
Department regarding they needed two parking spaces. That problem
has been resolved by taking away four seats from the restaurant
therefore meeting the parking requirements. I resubmitted a set of
No„ plans to Mr. Nowak about ten days ago showing the new seating
capacity to comply with the code. The revised site plan I
submitted also includes the security lighting. It also includes
the landscaping of the entrance of Seven Mile and as far as the
slope, the water draining off onto Seven Mile, we have called for a
trench drain by the parking lot at Seven Mile and that will resolve
that problem. The only thing that we can't do anything about is
people park at Metro 25, the bank. That is something I cannot do
anything about.
Mr. Engebretson: When you said you called for attention to that drain, what
exactly did you mean?
Mr. Boumaroun: I have with me a revised plan showing the trench drain. That is
eventually going to catch all the stuff that flows down off the
parking lot and be taken back to the existing catch basins, and
everything else that was mentioned in the letter has been taken
care of. There is only one item, on the elevation plan we show
enclosing all the units on the rooftop with aluminum siding, kind
of a bronze color to match the existing building.
Mr. Ansara: In regards to the sign that is still located on Seven Mile Road, we
were issued a violation on that. I went last week to appeal that
and spoke to Mr. MacDonald. He asked me to bring back some
additional data, which I will be doing tomorrow.
12769
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have screening for your air conditioning unit?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
*la. Mr. Alanskas: On these 18 parking spots you have near Seven Mile Road, how far is
that for your customers to walk to the front door?
Mr. Boumaroun: I would say about 250 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Would that be a problem to your customers in the winter time?
Mr. Boumaroun: I have talked to the owners and they have agreed on having their
employees park here. (He pointed this out on the map)
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees?
Mr. Boumaroun: Ten employees.
Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering you show all this greenbelt. Is that going to be
there?
Mr. Boumaroun: By us providing 15% landscaping, eventually that is what it is
going to look like.
Mr. Tent: There will be ten employees. Is that the maximum?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: That is a good idea to have your employees park in no-man's land
because it is a great distance away. If that can be contained, you
"%sr won't have additional people parking there.
Mr. Morrow: Is the lighting plan shown there?
Mr. Boumaroun: We are showing a new light pole at the entrance off Seven Mile.
Another one will be towards the middle of the parking lot and
another one up here. (He pointed this out on the map) It is angle
lighting.
Mr. Morrow: What is the height?
Mr. Boumaroun: That we have not determined yet. Usually they run 20 feet.
Mr. Morrow: I think 20 feet is the height we like to see and the light will
be restricted to your parking lot and not filter over into other
areas.
Mr. Tent: One thing that is very important to me is the condition of the
driveway and the approach. Are you going to have that all
reconditioned and put new asphalt in?
Mr. Boumaroun: What driveway?
Mr. Tent: The parking lot.
Mr. Boumaroun: We are calling for all of this whole area to be blacktopped.
12770
Mr. Tent: How about behind the restaurant?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is all going to be repaired once this has been approved.
�,. Mr. Tent: When you say repaired, it will be repaired to original standards.
In other words, it won't just be a patch job.
Mr. Ansara: The entire lot will be resurfaced.
Mrs. Fandrei: Gentlemen, the roof area along the sides, what material is that
going to be?
Mr. Boumaroun: The new look that Big Boys are giving their stores, this color is
going to be a dark burgundy aluminum sheeting that will be covering
the shaded area there.
Mrs. Fandrei: From what I remember, and it seems like the staff measured the
distance from your walking area to Seven Mile, Mr. Shane wasn't
that over 300 feet?
Mr. Shane: It was over 300 feet.
Mrs. Fandrei: It's quite a distance because we were concerned about people
walking that distance especially at night. You are saying you are
going to require that your employees park back there?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: I want to clarify a few things. If I understand you right, you are
going to resurface the existing parking lot when you put in the new
+ftw parking lot. Is that correct?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: On the south side of your building coming in off Middlebelt, you
have right now a big steel pole. I assume that is so trucks won't
hit the overhang. Is that going to still be there or will that go
because you won't have the overhang there any more?
Mr. Boumaroun: We have indicated on the plan that it will be one-way and there
will be a sign stating one-way only.
Mr. LaPine: The whole outside of the building is going to be renovated to look
basically like this. Is that correct?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: You are not proposing any new signage?
Mr. Boumaroun: No.
Mr. Tent: The pole sign under consideration, you are going to review that
with Ordinance Enforcement so there is no reason to put that in as
far as any of our resolutions?
12771
Mr. Boumaroun: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Where about on your plan is your dumpster going to be?
Mr. Boumaroun: The dumpster originally was on this side (he pointed this out on
the plan) and it was brought to our attention that it was too far
of a distance for the employees to walk. We removed one parking
spot to place it here (this was also pointed out on the plan).
Mr. LaPine: Is that going to be screened?
Mr. Boumaroun: What we are asking for is a block and brick dumpster enclosure.
Mrs. Fandrei: You have two dumpsters there now. Is the new area going to be
larger to accommodate both of these or will there just be one.
Mr. Boumaroun: There is only one dumpster. The other unit is a grease barrel.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-76-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on the rehearing of Petition 92-6-2-21 by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating
capacity of an existing restaurant located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Vassar Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
`"w recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-2-21 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP-1 dated 3/10/93 prepared by
Technical Group, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevations marked Sheet No. A-3 dated 3/13/93
prepared by Technical Group, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 162.
4) That a Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for their approval within thirty (30) days of the date of this
resolution.
5) That the existing parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped.
6) That the light poles shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
for the following reasons:
12772
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
'fir. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-2-2-7
by Al Rice requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking of moving
and storage trucks on property located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
their office has no objection to this proposal. We have also
Nur received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department
has no objection to the plan. Lastly, we have received a letter
from the Inspection Department stating they have no objection to
the proposed use; however, the petitioner did erect two wall signs
advertising this use without obtaining a sign permit. These signs
do not conform to the sign provisions for industrial zoning
districts and will have to be removed or appealed to the Zoning
Board.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and describe your
proposal.
Al Rice, 21530 Waldron. Farmington Hills: My proposal is that I can park moving
and storage trucks on the piece of property located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman and Osmus. As far as the
issue of the signs, I have talked to the Zoning Department on that
and the signs will be taken down from the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: To the staff, Mr. Nagy on this drawing that we have received, and
when I went out there I noticed a big pile of firewood in the
southwest corner of the property and the propane tanks are right
next to it. Would that be appropriate to have the firewood that
close to the propane gas?
12773
Mr. Nagy: One would normally think not but I am not the expert. We did ask
for a report from our Fire Marshal. He apparently does not have a
problem. I would personally tend to agree with you.
"ftw Mrs. Fandrei: What date is your letter from the Fire Department?
Mr. Nagy: March 4, 1993.
Mrs. Fandrei: Sir, that firewood was newly cut. How long has it been there?
Mr. Rice: We have had firewood on our property for over ten years and
probably larger quantities than we have now.
Mrs. Fandrei: The same amount that you have right now?
Mr. Rice: More. We have scaled down the operation over the past three to
four years. When the propane and firewood was together, we had a
conversation with the Fire Department. We actually brought in the
Livonia Fire Department and worked with the Fire Department on the
propane and the wood and comments from them with how we should
handle it in case of fire. What happened over the years, the
building to the east has caught on fire twice since we have been
there, and the first time it happened, we weren't aware whether the
City knew how to act if there was a fire on our property so we
brought the Fire Department in after that and went through the
procedures with them. We have talked to the Fire Department and
the Fire Marshal has been out and they feel that there wasn't a
problem as far as one supporting the other one as far as a hazard
or fire starting there. The way it is set up on our property has
been a very safe operation. Not only your Fire Department but the
`410. state comes in and checks us yearly and inspects our operation and
the State Police checks it and they have all approved our
operation.
Mrs. Fandrei: That answers my whole concern. This property is very well taken
care of. I have to say for the type of operation I was really
quite impressed.
Mr. Rice: We have owned the property for many years and this isn't a new
business for us. What has happened, I understand from the Zoning
Department, because we now have more moving and storage versus the
semi's we had in there and the conventional equipment, the
ordinance applied to those types of trucks. Our yard is probably
the cleanest now than in 25 years. What we have done is try to
make the property more acceptable for the usage, not only keep the
property clean and accessible for fire and public safety but
generally try to improve the general overall condition of the
property. In the mid 80's when the City had the program to clean
up Eight Mile, I think we were one of the few businesses that took
that to heart and landscaped our property. I feel we have one of
the nicest operations in that area.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with you.
Mr. Rice: If you had seen that property 20 years ago when we got it, it
really was a challenge.
12774
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Rice, on the site plan you have here, behind your office space,
I too was there Saturday, and there is a little storage shed. Is
that going to be removed?
Mr. Rice: The reason that has been there, over the years between the Fire
Department and the insurance company, we have elected not to keep
certain materials in the building that were hazardous. Rather than
have them sit outside in the open, that building has been there to
contain those types of items. We feel that shed is concealed. We
were going to paint that to match the color of the building but
rather than have those items sitting out in the open, which is
garden tools, lawn mowers, gasoline cans, etc. we secure them in
that shed.
Mr. Alanskas: There was an awful lot of refuse on the outside of that shed
Saturday. I thought it was a complete mess.
Mr. Rice: On Saturday it was exceptionally messy that day because we were
doing some spring cleaning and we moved a lot of stuff around. We
actually had a contractor come in to take some additional items
out.
Mr. Alanskas: If you want to park these 14 trucks on the right side of the
property, are they all going to be in that area or they going to be
helter skelter?
Mr. Rice: We are very conscious of the way the property has looked and is
perceived by not only ourselves but the public. I did revise the
sketch because the first sketch I did really didn't show things in
proportion to the way the City wanted me to do. The reason for
putting the trucks on this side, you can see on the second sketch,
the back area we tried to use that for a turnaround area and an
area to jockey the trucks. This is a large area that we use as a
turnaround. That is the only part of the property that isn't
paved. We use that to turn in and turn around.
Mr. Alanskas: You do plan on keeping that little shed there?
Mr. Rice: That was never a issue with the City. We feel rather than not have
a shed there and have the stuff sit out as more of an eyesore, we
have the gas station right next door and we recently screened the
fence there and we have tried to be conscious of our neighbors to
the west.
Mr. Alanskas: What type of flooring does that shed have?
Mr. Rice: It is steel flooring with wood on top of that.
Mr. Engebretson: When you refer to a shed, are you referring to that trailer that
is out there?
Mr. LaPine: It is an old Art Van trailer that you have back there. Right?
Mr. Rice: That is correct.
12775
Mr. LaPine: In front of that you have a bunch of old batteries. Are those
good batteries?
Mr. Rice: Those are batteries that have been taken out of a truck recently.
New Those batteries are going to be scrapped.
Mr. LaPine: Behind where your trucks are now, you have a piece of equipment.
We thought it was scaffolding equipment. What is that old steel
stuff there?
Mr. Rice: That is a trailer with some scaffolding equipment on it right now.
Mr. LaPine: What do you use that for?
Mr. Rice: That isn't being used at all. There is a lawsuit pending right
now. We have to hold on to it until it is settled and then it will
be out of the yard, which should come pretty quick.
Mr. LaPine: You have an old kettle sitting there. What is that used for?
Mr. Rice: That also will be removed out of the yard. There are a couple of
trucks that belong to that man that brought it into our yard and
was storing those things there and they will be removed.
Mr. LaPine: I don't agree with my fellow Commissioner Mrs. Fandrei, how
beautiful this site is. I think there is a lot of stuff that can
be cleaned up and look a lot better. Let's go to the trucks. You
have 14 trucks. Is that the maximum number of trucks you have?
Mr. Rice: That is the maximum number of trucks we own. At best we probably
`rr• have 10 trucks on the property at one time.
Mr. LaPine: How many of these 14 trucks are tractor-trailers?
Mr. Rice: Two.
Mr. LaPine: I go by there quite often and at times I have seen three there and
there are times when I have seen four.
Mr. Rice: At times we are loading one truck to another.
Mr. LaPine: I want to know exactly how many you have.
Mr. Rice: If you count all our stores, I probably have 10 to 15
tractor-trailers.
Mr. LaPine: How many tractor-trailers will be at that site?
Mr. Rice: Right now there are just two at this site. There will be times
when additional tractor-trailers come in to unload but usually
there are just two tractor-trailers at this site.
Mr. LaPine: I can expect to see no more than two tractor-trailers at this site
at any one time except when they are coming in? You say they are
coming in and loading and unloading. I don't understand that.
What are you bringing back there?
12776
Mr. Rice: If I have one truck that is going to put a load onto another truck,
the truck will come in and we will change the driver, then that is
when we will have an extra tractor-trailer.
�.. Mrs. Fandrei: To my fellow Commissioner, Bill did you go out there Saturday and
sir you said Saturday was the day you were doing your
housecleaning. I went by there today and today it was in order
where Saturday it wasn't.
Mr. Rice: It isn't a case that it was out of order. We are always on a
program of cleaning things up but we had some additional activity
over the weekend.
Mrs. Fandrei: It looks better today.
Mr. Rice: Yes it looks better today.
Mrs. Fandrei: In our notes we have a reference that there is not much
landscaping. Do you have any plans for putting any additional
landscaping in, which is something we are trying to do for the
beautification of Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Rice: I feel for the size of our lot and the parking we have, we have
some of the most landscaping. If you look at our front yard, I
spent over $20,000 in landscaping. I think I have done a lot of
landscaping. Granted there is no landscaping in the concrete yard
but it is not practical to put landscaping in up to the building.
There is no feasible landscaping we can do, that I can see. It is
very attractive.
r► Mrs. Fandrei: I was wondering if the staff might have any other recommendations?
Mr. Shane: From my site evaluation, I have to agree that the Eight Mile Road
frontage is very well done. From a practical standpoint I think to
try and landscape anywhere else on the site probably would not be
advisable because of all the activity that takes place. He has
taken care of the front, the public portion. In this particular
case, I would think that was sufficient.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree.
Mr. Engebretson: It looks to me like you have space set aside that theoretically
could accommodate 14 tractor-trailers. Wouldn't you say?
Mr. Rice: Sure but then I would lose my turnaround.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess I just wanted to say that I don't see that would be a
problem even if you did want to put all tractor-trailers in there
if they are all neatly lined up. I think the point of concern
comes about when another user in town came in and said he was going
to have a few trucks and turned up with 30 and had them all over
the place, in driveways and all sorts of prohibited areas.
Mr. Rice: We also own property very close to this site that is very
accommodating and a lot of our bigger trucks go to that location.
12777
Over the years we had a mix-match of different trucks and equipment
and it was very hard to keep the yard organized. Our employees
would come in and park their vans or piece of equipment. Now we
have tried to make it more eye appealing. We feel we have done a
,— very good job at this location.
Mr. Engebretson: I tend to agree.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Rice, you said your trucks have to turn around. Couldn't these
vehicles just pull straight in?
Mr. Rice: Just for the traffic problem. We only have one exit on the
property. All the years I have been there we haven't had a traffic
problem and part of that is when we do have a tractor-trailer come
in we don't have it back out onto Eight Mile Road. We are real
close up to the light and if you try to back a truck out, the
traffic doesn't like to stop.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-2-2-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
##4-77-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 93-2-2-7 by Al Rice requesting waiver use approval for
outdoor parking of moving and storage trucks on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 93-2-2-7 until the study meeting of April
20, 1993.
Now
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Fandrei, Morrow, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you want to give the petitioner some ideas of the things we
want to discuss, Mr. Tent, at that meeting?
Mr. Tent: I am concerned about the ZBA's consideration for landscaping, the
fence, the parking of the trucks. If we can come up with some
uniform agreement as to what the site would look like, the
landscaping and also how to handle the truck situation, the
turnaround. There is a question about the fencing material,
whether that has been approved, whether it is conforming or
non-conforming. In other words, just a general discussion of what
is going to take place at that particular site.
12778
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-2-8
by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold their annual
spring carnival at Ladbroke DRC located on the south side of the
Schoolcraft Service Drive and east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
their department has no objection to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
their office has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file
is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department has no
objection to the plan as submitted.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step down and tell us about your
proposal.
Gerry Bagazinski, 29100 Sunnydale: I am with the Livonia Jaycees. It is the
Livonia Jaycees 28th Annual Spring Festival. It is the longest
running carnival in the City of Livonia. It is running May 20th
through May 31st at Ladbroke DRC. We are looking forward to
another spectacular festival.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do we have a time or approximate time when the building
might start happening on that corner?
�,. Mr. Nagy: I think they have already applied for site clearance and site
demolition. I think it is imminent.
Mrs. Fandrei: During the time this carnival might be going on?
Mr. Nagy: Very likely. They might be doing some site grading, foundation
work, etc.
Mrs. Fandrei: To me that is a big concern. Are you aware this might be happening
at the same time as your carnival, right next to it?
Mr. Bagazinski: This is the first I have heard of it but I am not overly concerned
about it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, what is your interpretation of that?
Mr. Nagy: Ladbroke will require them to secure the property. They will have
to put their own protective fencing up and they will have to have
their own on-site security to protect their property. I think with
the proper security personnel, they should be able to co-exist.
Mrs. Fandrei: Where were you planning on parking?
Mr. Bagazinski: They will have plenty of parking and ingress and egress will be
off Middlebelt.
r..
12779
Mrs. Fandrei: It seems like we have a few questions here that are not addressed.
I am riot comfortable with this right now.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
'vow Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-2-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#4-78-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 93-3-2-8 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use
approval to hold their annual spring carnival at Ladbroke DRC located on
the south side of the Schoolcraft Service Drive and east of Middlebelt
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-3-2-8 be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other
related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the
operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on DRC property
adjacent to the carnival site.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#1543, as amended.
Mr. Tent: I would like to make a suggestion to Mr. Bagazinski, because what
Mrs. Fandrei said is very true. There could be some complications.
I would suggest you address these issues and check those out
because it may be a possibility the dates would be in conflict with
what they are proposing. While I do support this proposal and I
will vote for it, I think you should be made aware of the situation
and explore it.
Mr. Bagazinski: I appreciate that being brought to our attention. We will
certainly meet with the DRC and with the building people.
Mr. Morrow: If I understood John Nagy correctly, the developer on the corner
will have to secure his property from the DRC use. Is that
correct? They will probably take ingress and egress within those
confines. I just wanted to bring that out.
Mr. Engebretson: It is still a valid point but I think it would be a good thing
for the Jaycee committee to look into so you won't be caught by
surprise.
12780
Mrs. Fandrei: I am very supportive of the Jaycees' carnival but I can't support
them until I am personally more comfortable in their understanding
of what is going to be possibly taking place on the property and
where their ingress and egress and parking is going to be,
vim,, particularly with the realization that you are going to have
teenagers, and children, and children running. There are too many
questions that aren't addressed yet so at this time I can't be
supportive of it.
Mr. Alanskas: I think as John Nagy said, with proper fencing separating the two,
there shouldn't be any problem with that situation.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-3-1
by Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, requesting to vacate a 20 foot wide
sanitary sewer easement across property located on the east side of
Haggerty Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
6.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
'r.. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they were forwarding to the petitioner a new Grant of Easement to
cover the relocated sanitary sewer as well as the original portion
of the sewer system. They further state their office has no
objection to the vacating petition. They recommend that the final
vacating ordinance not be recorded until the above substitute Grant
of Easement has been received.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Frank Jonna, 1533 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: I am with the Jonna Companies.
Essentially everything is spelled out. We relocated the new sewer.
The new sewer is in place. The original sewer was placed for the
previous design and it created a conflict. There was no existing
flow on that sewer. It is stubbed to the freeway for future
extension across the freeway, and there has been no disruption to
any homeowners as a result of this change.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Jonna, pursuant to what the Engineering Department said, has
your plans been revised to reflect the new easement on the
property?
Mr. Jonna: Yes. My understanding is the entire easement through this property
will be rewritten and that will be recorded rather than amending
the previous easement.
12781
Mr. Morrow: In other words they say the final vacation of this easement should
not be accomplished until the new easements are in place. You will
be moving in that direction?
Mr. Jonna: Absolutely.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jenna, is this Source Club building under construction right
now?
Mr. Jonna: Yes it is.
Mrs. Fandrei: Did you just happen to run across this while you were digging?
Mr. Jonna: We were aware of it and relocated the new sewer so it was out of
the way. The existing sewer, although the easement was there, we
built the new sewer before construction started so the new sewer
was constructed but the easement remained.
Mrs. Fandrei: Engineering was aware of this way up front?
Mr. Jonna: Yes we discussed this early in the project with Engineering.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am curious why this wasn't brought up when you came for site plan
approval and why Engineering didn't mention it when you came for
site plan approval.
Mr. Nagy: This is not out of the ordinary. This is a common occurrence when
you have major redevelopment. Maybe you will recall Metro Health
Care System on Schoolcraft. They wanted to relocate a water line
and Mr. Guastello had a little problem with that. It is not
unusual.
Mrs. Fandrei: It seems strange to come to us at this point when you are already
under construction. I would think if they wanted to change it, it
would be done at site plan approval time.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the last obstacle you are going to have out there?
Mr. Jonna: That I am aware of.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-3-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-79-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 93-3-3-1 by Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, requesting to
vacate a 20 foot wide sanitary sewer easement across property located on
the east side of Haggerty Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-3-3-1 be approved subject
to receipt of a substitute Grant of Easement for the following reasons:
1) That there is no longer any public use to be made of the subject
easement.
12782
2) That the existing sanitary sewer can be accommodated in an
alternate location.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
'Now accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-7-1
by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of
the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to designate
Fox Road (a private road), located north of Six Mile Road between
Haggerty Road and the 1-275 Expressway, as a Local Street.
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
should this road become a public street, we will require a 60 foot
wide right-of-way. In addition, we will require testing of the
existing concrete, thickness and subgrade to determine its
acceptability as a public street since the original roadway was
placed as a private road without inspection of this office.
Mr. Engebretson: The Planning Commission is technically the petitioner in this
case so we will go to the audience to see if there is anyone
wishing to speak for or against this proposal.
N,, Adelard Raby: I am the Vice President of Business at Schoolcraft. I am not here
to speak for or against it but quite frankly until about ten
o'clock this morning we did not know that this was an item on for
discussion. The college has had no opportunity, quite frankly, to
look at the ramifications of what this change would mean to the
college in the future in terms of what Fox Drive has in our future
plans. At this point, all I am expressing is our concern that we
were not notified of the discussion taking place. We would like,
obviously, an opportunity to take a look at what ramifications this
has for the college in the future.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Raby. I think I may be able to account for the
lack of notification. If I am wrong, Mr. Nagy will clarify it. At
this point, the only thing under consideration is to modify the
Master Thoroughfare Plan not to actually take the action to change
this from a privately owned road to a public road but it is really
the first step of many if that were to happen. Mr. Nagy, I will
look to you to tell me if that might account for the fact they
weren't notified
Mr. Nagy: I think to a great extent to explain that the Master Thoroughfare
Plan is a document that is adopted by the City Planning Commission
and it shows the Planning Commission's interest in trying to
implement a plan for the streets and roads and thoroughfares of the
12783
City. It doesn't initiate any condemnation. It doesn't initiate
any taking of property. It simply demonstrates that, from a
planning standpoint, it is the intention of the City to try to
pursue, if the land is developed in that area, to have a local
'`, street, a right-of-way with 60 feet. The notification requirements
pursuant to that act provides you must publish notice within the
official newspaper of the City of Livonia and that was what was
done. However, I would indicate since there is some genuine
interest on the part of property owners, to have had an effective
dialogue and public hearing, I think in hindsight I would say it
would probably have been wiser to have issued to the institutions,
such as the college, actual written notice, something they could
take to their boards to try to get a more official review of the
matter. Perhaps, in hindsight, I wish our office would have done
that but there is no actual legal ramification to do that. I did
talk to Mr. Raby this morning about that and indicated that in
hindsight I wished I would have done that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Raby, I know at times the college itself conducts significant
points of business and uses the method of advertising their public
hearings as a way to let citizens know and interested property
owners, etc. know. I guess there might be another reason why the
staff may not have considered this to be something that really even
merited the college's attention, there is very lukewarm, if any,
support to move forward with this item at this time. While I
wouldn't want to give the impression that decisions are formed
before hearing all the facts, the facts that we had to work with
prior to coming here tonight would lead one to think that would be
a likely conclusion but be that as it may, here we are. We
apologize.
Mr. Raby: That is not necessary. Quite frankly we get minor notices of
things that come to this Commission and this one just didn't come
to us and we are trying to understand the process and be aware of
what the ramifications would be in the future.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that point of view and we are glad you are here.
We will give you the opportunity to say whatever else you wish to
add on the subject.
Mr. Raby: At this point I have made our position known and we just need to do
some study.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-3-7-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-80-9.3 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6,
1993 on Petition 93-3-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part
I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare
Plan, so as to designate Fox Road (a private road), located north of Six
Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway, as a Local
Street, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 93-3-7-1 until date uncertain.
12784
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
PI543, as amended.
`rr Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Raby, we will put in our records specific instructions to
give you notice if and when this item is taken up for further
discussion. I would suggest to you that until you get that notice,
it would not be worth spending any of your time and energy on
investigating or studying any of the aspects of this. We will be
sure to include you from day one if we bring this item back for
further discussion if and when.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 661st Regular Meeting held on March 23, 1993.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
PP4-81-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 661st Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on March 23, 1993 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
'` Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-1-8-1
by Frank L. Grisa requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of Zoning Ordinance 11543 in connection with a proposal to alter
the building elevations of a building at 15225 Farmington Road in
Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This is the Marke' Building, which is the home of Sneaky Pete's
Restaurant and the Indian Village Cleaners. It is located on the
corner of Five Mile Road and Farmington. The proposal is to alter
three elevations of the building, the elevation that faces
Farmington, the one that faces Five Mile Road and the one that is
behind Farmington Road. Right now there is a structural canopy
that sticks out about five to six feet over the sidewalk and
because of deterioration the petitioner would like to remove the
overhang and take the existing molding that is along the overhang
and put it flush against the building and the signs would be flush
against the building. A canopy would be installed over the
entrance of Sneaky Pete's Restaurant.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Frank Grisa, 15603 Edington Road: I brought along samples of materials proposed to
be used on Sneaky Pete's entrance. (He presented the samples to
the Commission)
12785
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, this rendering that we have here. Will this go on to the
Council?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
'Nler
Mr. Tent: Is there any chance Mr. Grisa to change this rendering to get rid
of that red brick up at the top before it goes on to Council
because it reminds me so much of the bank at Six Mile and Newburgh
and I don't want them to get the idea we are in the process of
going ahead with that? If we can get the correct rendering of what
it will look like, then I can support it.
Mr. Grisa: Yes I can do that.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have plans on the bottom half where it is wood down. Is
that going to be restained?
Mr. Grisa: Yes, we restain that about every three years.
Mr. Alanskas: So the entire building will be restained?
Mr. Grisa: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure I understand exactly what will that piece of
building material be used for.
Mr. Grisa: A screen to give the building a good appearance above the canopy.
It is existing. It was put on years ago.
Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering you have Indian Village Cleaners. Where it says
— Cleaners, is that going to be a piece of wood with printing on it.
Mr. Grisa: They have an existing sign there now.
Mr. Nagy: It is the same sign.
Mr. Grisa: Right now it is mounted as a roof sign but it will be a wall sign.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-82-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-1-8-1 by Frank L. Grisa requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to alter the building elevations of a
building at 15225 Farmington Road in Section 21 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 1/20/93, by Frank L. Grisa, P.E. , for the
Markel Building at 15225 Farmington Road, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan dated 1/20/93, by Frank L. Grisa, P.E. , is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
�"' resolution adopted.
12786
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Warren Sign Systems, on behalf of Service Merchandise,
requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 29751
Plymouth Road in Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This is the Wonderland Shopping Center and the proposed Service
Merchandise will be located where the Foland Department Store was
previously located. The proposed sign will be 484 square feet.
The ordinance states there is only one sign allowed per facade and
because there are already multi signs, there is a variance for the
shopping center. In reality most stores are only allowed one
square foot per linear foot of the building. This building is
approximately 200 square feet and 200 linear feet of frontage so
they are only allowed 200 square feet of signage. They are asking
for 484 square feet. They will have to get a variance in any
excess for a sign so they will have to go to the ZBA.
Jeff Johnson, 24224 Mound Road, Warren: I am with Warren Sign Systems. I will let
everyone introduce themselves.
David Landry, 116 Park Place, Nashville, Tennessee: I am with Service Merchandise.
Butch Jackson, 3985 Tampa Road, Tampa, Florida: I am with Heath Sign Company.
Mr. Johnson: Given the setback of this particular store front, we feel it
necessary to allow for a larger sign at this particular location.
Many attempts were made to bring the sign into conformity, into the
200 and some square feet that would be allowed at this location.
The problem is given the configuration of the lot, it is strictly
not feasible to have a sign that could conform and have it be
Now legible from the street. In our attempt to sign this location we
went back to the standard sign package for Service Merchandise and
found that the 11' x 44' sign would be appropriate for this
location based on numerous locations that have similar signage and
the same area square footage as far as the frontage is concerned.
In many locations, by ordinance, this sign would be allowed, but at
this particular location in Livonia, we have an uphill struggle.
We spent a great deal of time at the location and we would like to
ask for your consideration of this sign.
Mr. Alanskas: I was there Saturday and again today. I believe the Target store
has a deeper setback than you do and they only have 170 square feet
and you can see that sign very, very well from the road with no
problem whatsoever at 170 square feet. I really have a hard time
thinking you need a sign 44' x 11' .
Mr. Landry: That Target sign appears to be 10' x 40' unless they are doing the
square footage of individual letters.
Mr. Alanskas: That is exactly my point. That sign looks a lot bigger to you
and it is half the height of what you would like to have. You
would have no problem whatsoever having a sign that same size and
being seen from Plymouth Road. Believe me, that sign is seen very,
very well and you want to have one twice the height.
12787
Mr. Johnson: One of the restraints we have is the readability of script style
versus block style letters. Those are very bold letters. They are
spaced very far apart and very recognizable with the Target loco.
When you have script style lettering, your readability becomes
diminished and then the secondary lettering that is underneath the
word Merchandise again becomes increasingly small given a difficult
logo to try and impact the public.
Mr. Alanskas: I am trying to make a point. The size you are asking for is way
out of proportion.
Mr. Landry: Target has 6 letters. We have 26 letters.
Mr. LaPine: Let me say we are very happy to have Service Merchandise coming to
Livonia. We are glad to see you take that empty space but we have
to be reasonable with the signage on this location. I was out
there Saturday too. When you look at this location and take the
overall height of the building from the ground to the top, this
sign that you are proposing is almost half what the height of the
building is, which to me is way over. Number two, the Target sign
you can't miss it from Plymouth Road. This sign would overpower
everything in there. It seems to me that we can get a reasonable
sign here and still do the job you expect the sign to do. Service
Merchandise is a national corporation. Once people see that sign,
they are going to know Service Merchandise and say we have heard of
it, we know what it looks like. The corporate sign is basically
the same sign you use throughout the metropolitan Detroit area, I
assume, and also across the country. You are going to have to come
up, in my opinion, with a smaller sign. The argument that you give
that you only have two size signs, to me that doesn't hold water.
;,` We have had people come in here many times that say we only have
two size signs, and I can drive throughout the metropolitan Detroit
area, which I do a lot of driving because I am a sales person, and
I go to other communities and find out they enforced their sign
ordinance and they got a lot smaller sign. They had to build a
sign strictly for that location. That might be what you have to do
here. I agree with Mr. Alanskas. I am willing to give you a sign
the same size as Target. I think it is going to do the job for
you. I don't think the sign you are proposing is really needed to
advertise your establishment. I think you can come up with
something we can both be happy with.
Mr. Engebretson: Just a comment. You indicated being comfortable with a sign the
size of Target's, which is 170 square feet. They are really
entitled to 200 square feet. You will not be troubled by that?
Mr. LaPine: No I am not troubled with that.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, if it was an independent building?
Mr. Nagy: The rule is still one square foot per each linear foot. It doesn't
change.
Mr. McCann: Does the Target site, is that measured differently than the script
lettering?
12788
Mr. Nagy: The ordinance doesn't distinguish between styles of letters.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Jackson, are the signs all prefabricated?
rn. Mr. Jackson: Yes they are. We build on a blanket contract for the year and they
are prefabricated.
Mr. McCann: How difficult is it to reduce the size?
Mr. Jackson: Re-digitizing all the computer equipment. Everything is put in at
the beginning of the year. We service 50 odd stores for Service
Merchandise. The standard letter that we use for Service
Merchandise is 12' x 48' and we do that from California to Maine
and Florida. We are now working internationally with the same size
sign. I beg to differ with you. I am an expert in the field and
there is a difference between readability and legibility on a
street such as this. We spent a lot of time driving the street.
We also manufacture the signs for Target and I attend these
meetings for the Target people and there is a big difference
between the letters you are looking at being a block style letter
and a script style letter when you are going down the road at 45
miles per hour. At this site, apparently there is no pylon sign,
which is a free-standing sign out front with a tenant panel to
address the motorists that are driving to let them know what stores
are there. The script sign of this size, we have one smaller 10' x
40' , after looking at the site, that would be something we could
consider. We could meet our deadlines with that.
Mr. McCann: You are a professional that does this. You manufacture Target
signs but yet you believe that sign was not 5' x 34'?
Mr. Jackson: No. I didn't take measurements but we drove by and got out and
looked at it because we are trying to comply with other signs in
the area, which I try to do all over the United States. A lot of
times my clients will not move into an area because of the sign
ordinance. That is something we look at way in advance. This
situation came up after the store was being built.
Mr. Morrow: To the staff, are any of these stores you mentioned here, Dunhams,
Gantos, Target, Officemax, are any of those under a variance or are
they pretty well complying?
Mr. Nagy: Most of them are under a variance.
Mr. Morrow: To what degree?
Mr. Nagy: These square footage numbers are in proportion to the standard of 1
for 1. Where they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals was for the
excessive number of signs.
Mr. Morrow: That is what I am getting at. The quantity of the outside signage
is under variance not the actual size, so they are complying for
all intents and purposes. Across the country, are there any signs
that vary from the two you indicate?
Mr. Landry: We have exceptions.
12789
Mr. Morrow: I guess what I am leading to here is we have a number of tenants in
there and probably some more to come. Why would we grant somebody
twice the size the other tenants are laboring under. I respect the
expert that says Service Merchandise is a little tougher to read
than the Target sign, however, I am very familiar with Service
Merchandise. I don't think the sign is going to alter your success
or non-success. I am concerned about exceeding two and a half
times the ordinance.
Mr. Tent: You made a comment about Arizona and Phoenix. Let me ask you, have
you had any Service Merchandise stores in Arizona? If so, did they
have to comply with the sign ordinance?
Mr. Jackson: They went for a variance. In Scottsdale, which is a suburb of
Phoenix, that was a 10' x 40' with a variance.
Mr. Tent: The gentleman at the end indicated you have corporate organizations
all over the country with ordinances that vary in different cities.
He was asked did you ever have to make any smaller signs to comply
with a specific city and he indicated yes he did, which means there
is latitude here. The point I would like to make here, at this
point, we just enacted a new sign ordinance and we took input from
people all over the City, business people and all, as to what would
be the ideal size, etc. We came up with an ordinance that we feel
comfortable with and the merchants felt comfortable with, etc. We
have enacted that ordinance and it is not very old. People are
complying with it. It is not that bad that everybody is saying we
are not going to locate in your City because your signs aren't
compatible. My point is, as much as we introduced a new ordinance
and are trying to comply with it, and what you submitted does not
comply with the ordinance, I would say comply and then come in with
a sign that would be smaller because you have done it before in the
past. We are very concerned about the signs within our City. That
is my comment to you that I could not support that sign, as my
other Commissioners have indicated, that is twice as big as this to
sacrifice the other merchants, who did comply with what we asked.
I would say think about it and come in with something smaller
because I could not support the signage you have now.
Mr. Landry: If a particular building has a smaller sign, the architectural
design is dramatic. We came in with the idea that we could
probably get at least an 8' x 32' or 9' x 36. When I read the code
we were allowed up to 500 square feet. It may not be possible to
get that. We might have to think of something smaller. We would
certainly be looking at doing 9' x 36' . Anything smaller, we would
have to do radical changes to the building. There is not much left
of that original building. We feel we are very far back from the
road. Again, you say Target is less than 200 square feet, I find
that very hard to believe.
Mr. Tent: Our staff came up with that dimension. We are not about to give
you something that is not true. I would suggest that you accept
that. The thing is the gentleman from the sign company said his
computer is all programmed. Things change. Nothing is cast in
iron.
12790
Mr. Jackson: Let me clarify that. What I was saying in that respect is this
building is on a time frame. That was the reason we used this
particular type.
fir. Mr. Tent: While you are building a new one, we could give you a temporary
permit so you could have Service Merchandise in front of the
building and they could open up on time. There are various avenues
we could take. As my fellow Commissioner indicated, we are
certainly happy to have Service Merchandise in Livonia. We think
it is a fine operation and we would certainly hate to have a sign
be the difference between whether they would show up here or not.
Mr. Jackson: What would be the board's recommendation of a size that we could
work with?
Mr. Tent: Comply.
Mr. Jackson: Just comply.
Mr. Engebretson: What you heard was one point of view. What you heard would be
trouble free obviously because that is what is permitted. I think
that I want to believe there is some room for dialogue here that if
you had a sign that was 202 feet that was not in compliance, that
wouldn't necessarily be not considered. Mr. Landry mentioned a 8'
x 32' configuration, which would come out to 256 square feet, which
is 25% over but maybe that, taking into consideration the style and
script, maybe that would be a reasonable thing to consider. I can
tell you from my point of view it would be. I would also like to
say that because you are a national corporation with a high degree
of recognition of that logo, I guarantee that my wife will find
\m . that store, if that sign were 3' x 3' because she will learn that
there is going to be a Service Merchandise at Wonderland Mall and
she will make it her business to go there as contrasted to driving
out to West Oaks where we go now. I guess what I am trying to
suggest to you is when we found the store at West Oaks we found it
because we were interested in Service Merchandise and we learned
that they had a store at West Oaks. We didn't find it because we
were flying down Novi Road and said "there's a Service Merchandise
store". You know what I am trying to say. I want to emphasize
that I think your coming to Livonia is a very positive thing. Your
coming to Wonderland Mall is a very positive thing for the
community and for that mall and I think we need to work together
here. Mr. Jackson has given information that would indicate making
a smaller sign is not an impossible thing but it may be somewhat
troublesome and time consuming. I guess I would like to know what
kind of a lead time is required to go through the process to
manufacture a smaller sign?
Mr. Jackson: To answer your question directly, about eight to ten weeks and then
we have shipping time but what my concern is, is the time frame of
this board and then us meeting the time frame afterwards. We can't
manufacture anything until we can complete this process. This is a
new logo introduced to this area. Most of the other stores have
the old style logo. It has not been changed.
12791
Mr. Engebretson: You have this logo, I believe, in your advertising material.
Mr. Jackson: That was the only point, most stores around here have this
particular logo. It has not been changed.
Mr. Engebretson: My purpose Mr. Jackson is certainly not to be argumentative but I
do think that people that are interested in shopping at Service
Merchandise know where their store is approximately. Everybody
knows where Wonderland Mall is but not everyone is aware that is
where Service Merchandise is to be located but they will find it
soon enough.
Mr. Jackson: It is the ones that don't that we need to advertise for.
Mr. Engebretson: My position is that a complying sign, once someone enters the
Wonderland Mall complex, they are going to find the Service
Merchandise store with no more trouble than if that sign were half
the size. I think the larger that sign becomes, becomes a moot
point in terms of making it more convenient to locate the store.
That is a personal opinion. I would also point out to you that
down the road from you in Boca Raton there are many national
corporations that bend their rules significantly to fit into that
particular style. You have a choice of coming in and doing
business in a satisfactory way or you don't come in and it is one
of my most favorite spots in all the world, next to Livonia.
Mr. Johnson: I am on a board in Boca Raton and the business that is lost in
Boca, there is a big trend going on there now because of the sign
ordinances that they are working on, and a lot of the merchants
feel, since you brought that up, they do feel they are losing a lot
of business because of their advertising in that particular area.
Mr. Engebretson: I just returned from there and I have to tell you the place is
jumping. The point is to try to give you from the shoulder a point
of view on perspective and again, it is real important to emphasize
the fact that we are really glad you are here. We want to find a
way to accommodate everyone's needs and that is the purpose of all
this prolonged dialogue.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Engebretson suggested something there. We didn't get a clear
answer on it but the 8' x 32' sign would be 256 feet. That would
give you 50% larger sign than the Target, which is the largest sign
there at this point. I think you would probably find sufficient
support, at least from myself and a couple of other members, if you
were willing to go along with that. You would understand you would
have to go to the ZBA for a variance and then to the Council. Is
that something you would agree to at this point?
Gentlemen: We would agree.
Mr. McCann: That is what I want to hear.
12792
Mr. Engebretson: You are then proposing that the dimension of that sign be changed
such that it will be 8' x 32' for a total of 256 square feet. Mr.
Nagy, can we make that modification right now?
Mr. Nagy: It is up to them.
Mr. Engebretson: I think they have done it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-83-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems, on
behalf of Service Merchandise, requesting approval for one wall sign for
the building located at 29751 Plymouth Road in Section 2, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan dated 3/17/93, submitted by Warren Sign Systems,
for the Service Merchandise Store at 29751 Plymouth Road, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to except for the fact that the
signage shall be reduced to no greater than 256 square feet.
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson, 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 Kacem Bacha for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for
property at 16860 Hubbard Road in Section 15.
Mr. Miller: The satellite dish will be located 60 feet from the north property
line and 30 feet from the rear property line. The satellite dish
is 10 feet in diameter. It will be mounted on a 6 foot pole. The
whole apparatus will be approximately 11 feet high. There is an
existing shed and existing trees on the lot which will act as
screening.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner or his representative here.
Bob: I am with Advanced Satellite. I am here to represent my client,
Kacem Bacha.
Mr. Alanska: I visited your site last Saturday and on your site plan you show a
fence on the back of the lot. I did not see any fence.
Bob: That is a proposed fence if necessary. The homeowner just moved
into the area. He wanted to know what would be possibly needed for
this kind of installation. He had some trees there. Some of the
other trees are proposed. The ones directly to the south. There
are some trees. He would be willing to put up more trees. The
neighbor directly behind him has signed an okay. The homeowner
said he didn't mind putting up a fence if it was needed.
12793
Mr. Alanskas: Do the neighbors know he may put up a fence if needed because there
are no fences in that area whatsoever?
Bob: That was not discussed with the neighbors. That was something
'41m,► suggested by me if necessary. If it was not necessary, they don't
really want to put one there.
Mr. Alanskas: You also had a shed shown on the site plan. I could not find any
shed back there.
Bob: That is a small building.
Mr. Alanskas: There wasn't any building.
Mr. Tent: I was there today and I echo what my fellow Commissioner said, I
couldn't see the fence and I couldn't find the shed. I walked
around the property. I saw the stake and there was a garden and
there was a little fence around the garden area but that is about
it. The other thing is, the fence was your recommendation in the
event there were any objections?
Bob: I can't really say recommendation. It is something we have
experienced before, if needed. Some people like privacy fences up
there. It was not discussed with the neighbors. It was something
the homeowner said he would be willing to do if it was required.
Mr. Tent: You are with the satellite company. Have you made any
installations there in Nottingham Woods of any satellites?
Bob: To the best of my knowledge, no.
Mr. Tent: There are no satellite dishes in that area so we don't know if
there are any homeowners' association restrictions or deed
restrictions?
Bob: The homeowner himself is not aware of any association or any
contingents when he purchased the property.
Mr. Tent: To the staff, the letters of acceptance. Do we have those from the
property owners behind and on either side of the proposal?
Mr. Nagy: We have three signed letters in our file.
Mr. LaPine: To the north of where you staked is a little area that has
evergreens there. Is that on his property or somebody else's
property?
Bob: I do believe it is his property.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any way this could be moved slightly more that way. this
is an open area. This property owner can see that very much. If
it was moved that way, these trees that were there would shade it a
lot more.
12794
Bob: The tree I drew in there. I am shooting right now just past the
tree. If I were to move it further towards the north lot line, the
satellite would be affected by the tree that is there.
*s' Mr. LaPine: I am normally not in favor of these satellite dishes but I don't
think that is any more intrusive to the area than the tower to the
south.
Mr. Engebretson: One thing we did notice is it is going to be quite visible from.
the street by the driveway. If there were a couple of
strategically placed trees on that property that would take care of
it and it would not interfere with your signal in any way.
Bob: That could be shielded very easily because it is not in direct
range.
Mr. Engebretson: If I understood your comments, there is a willingness to provide
some additional screening if needed, and from my point of view that
is needed. I think if we do that, the dish will not be a blight.
It will be well screened from the vast majority of the neighbors
and those immediately abutting, don't object.
Bob: I think you will find that is no problem. I think you will also
find from the road that particular style of dish with its color and
shading, is going to be very hard to see from the road. With some
kind of shrubbery there would be no problem.
Mr. Engebretson: Not something that is two feet high now and 25 years from now
will shield that. I am talking about something that will shield
that this year or next year and if this petition is successful, I
am going to personally go out there and see that it is done.
Bob: Would you have a suggestion as to why type of shrubbery.
Mrs. Fandrei: Evergreens.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#4-84-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit
Application by Kacem Bacha for the installation of a satellite dish
antenna for property at 16860 Hubbard Road in Section 15 for the
following reasons:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan dated 3/23/93 submitted by
Kacem Bacha for a satellite dish antenna at 16860 Hubbard Road, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the petitioner has agreed to plant a minimum of three (3)
evergreen trees that will be at least 5 feet tall to shield the
satellite dish from the street.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will
have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties.
12795
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Permit Application by Kacem Bacha for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property at 16860 Hubbard Road in Section 15
to the next study meeting held on April 20, 1993.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now call the roll on the original motion to approve.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent, Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 662nd Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on April 6, 1993 was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Saw CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/- J*mes C. McCann, Secretary
•
ATTEST: GkCert4n444JacEngebrson, Chairman
•
jg
�r.