HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-09-29 12284
MINUTES OF THE 650th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 29, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 650th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow
James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV, 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
golly 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.
Mayor Bennett presented a Service Recognition Pin to Conrad Gniewek in recognition
of 25 years of service in an appointed capacity in the City of Livonia.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-1-15
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #535-92,
proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Clarita Avenue
between Melvin Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 11 from R-5 to R-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City Planning Commission is petitioner here, I will
comment briefly. This comes about as a result of a City Council
resolution that referred this matter to the Planning Commission as
a by-product of them dealing with the zoning issues on both sides
of this property and the intent is to make this property to have a
12285
zoning district that reflects its current use and also make it more
compatible to the neighborhood. There is no advantage or
disadvantage to the City but we see this as a potential advantage
to the property owner. That is what we are trying to do. Is the
property owner here or is there anyone else in the audience wishing
rr. to speak to this item?
Robert Detter, 29764 Clarita: I am the property owner and it is this property here
on the map. I don't have any objection to the rezoning. I just
have a question or two. Would I be able to apply for a lot split
since this is being rezoned to allow a smaller lot size?
Mr. Engebretson: The zoning would give you the right to have two 70 foot lots
there. What the procedure would be, Mr. Nagy can help you.
Mr. Nagy: You do have to apply to the City Assessor's office for a tax parcel
split. Upon application it is reviewed by three City departments
and thereafter all departments give their recommendations back to
the Assessor and if it is divided into no more than two parcels,
both of which would comply, the City Assessor would then have the
power to grant the split without having to go to the City Council.
Mr. Detter: I have been to the Tax Assessor's office and they say they don't
normally increase the taxes when it goes from residential to
residential.
Mr. Engebretson: That is our understanding too.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-15 closed.
`'411..
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-464-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-15 by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #535-92, proposing to rezone
property located on the north side of Clarita Avenue between Melvin
Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5
to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 92-7-1-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an
existing zoning district on adjacent property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the existing zoning districts and uses in the surrounding
area.
3) That the proposed zoning district will provide for a uniform zoning
classification on the north side of Clarita Avenue west of Melvin
Avenue in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
i... #543, as amended.
12286
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 92-7-1-16
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #536-92,
proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Melvin Avenue
between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue from R-5 to R-1A.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Again, this is an action that comes about as a referral from the
City Council with the same explanation as the previous item. This
property is owned by Mr. King. If Mr. King is here, we would like
to ask him to step forward.
Nancy King, 18947 Melvin: I can't see why it can't stay the same. It was zoned
that way years ago when everything else was rural farm and the
City came in and changed it to R-1A, except for our lot. Changing
it now seems silly. I can understand why you want to make it all
the same but there is no advantage to me.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there any disadvantage?
Mr. Nagy: There really isn't a disadvantage. Their lot in the R-5 zoning
classification does conform to the R-5 zoning district regulations.
It just represents a spot zone. When you look and examine the map
and see such broad districts of one uniform zoning classification
law
and when you see one lot that stands out that has a zoning
classification totally different from the majority of the area, one
immediately wonders why. Since there is no advantage or
disadvantage, it just seems a good policy to have more consistent,
uniform zoning and avoid spot zoning. It is really in the City's
best interest to clean up the map and rezone it accordingly. What
really precipitated it was more or less the rezoning of the
property in the adjacent area to the east of Melvin Avenue to R-2
for the project currently under construction and Mr. Detter's
property. The Council looked at that area and examined the area.
Your lot with the R-5 zoning classification just stood out and that
is why they asked the Planning Commission to look at it to see if
it made sense to continue to have that R-5 zoning classification.
Mrs. King: Is this area the only area that is being done that way?
Mr. Nagy: We are, from time to time when these zoning matters come up, we do
examine the larger neighboring area for that reason. Because of
a petition currently pending before the Commission, we have to look
at the broader area of the neighborhood to see if what is being
petitioned for makes sense. In that analysis we do examine the
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mrs. King: The tax base is still the same?
12287
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. It will have no affect on your property taxes.
Mrs. King: We own the property to the south, which is a 70 foot lot. If it
ever came to a time when someone wanted to build a larger house
that would go on that 70 feet, could I sell them five feet of what
*lir I have.
Mr. Nagy: You will have a better advantage of selling due to the fact that
your zoning is now only R-1. You would still have to petition for
it but your chances are certainly better because you will be in
full compliance with the newly established zoning for the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if she did want to split off some portion of that
property under the R-5 zoning, would that then make that
non-conforming in the R-5 district?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. She would then be deficient with respect to the minimum
lot width of the R-5, being 100 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: So then there is a potential significant advantage to the
property owner.
Mr. Nagy: Precisely.
Mrs. King: That was the only thing I could think of when I got this. It was
such a shock.
Mr. Morrow: That was the point I was going to make. Chances are she might have
to rezone the property to split off five to ten feet. It could be
an advantage if you are thinking along those lines.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just mention to you that we were keenly aware of your
ownership of that adjacent property there and this was something
that had been discussed in the preparation of this proposal. It
was prepared to take into consideration the potential advantage if
you wanted to do that but there is no apparent disadvantage if you
just want to leave things the way they are.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-465-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-16 by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #536-92, proposing to rezone
property located on the west side of Melvin Avenue between Seven Mile
Road and Clarita Avenue from R-5 to R-1A, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-7-1-16 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area.
12288
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for one uniform
zoning classification for properties along Melvin Avenue in the
area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an
Aar existing zoning district on adjacent property in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#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 92-7-1-19
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Orangelawn
Avenue, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from
RUF to R-1A.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they
have no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: Lots 141 to 145 have already been rezoned to R-1. Now
we only want to have the rear 337 feet of Lot 140 rezoned to R-1.
Once it is rezoned, it would conform with whatever is in the area.
These lots would be approximately 65' x 120' .
Asir
Mr. Engebretson: This would join up with the adjacent property to complete the
subdivision?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. This would be part of the Orangelawn Woods Subdivision.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-466-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-19 by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone property located north of Orangelawn Avenue, west of Farmington
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 92-7-1-19 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 is a logical extension of an
existing zoning district in the area.
1r►
12289
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of
the subject land for single family residential lots in harmony with
the adjacent uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
'41111.' 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 92-8-1-20
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #214-92,
proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue,
south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to
R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: This is another petition by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to a Council resolution asking us to take this action. There was
another petition right across the street recently that brought this
to their attention. This happens to be a commercial piece of
property that has a single family home on it so it is a
non-conforming use. This would bring the zoning district into
accord with the use; however, at the same time it wouldn't change
`, anything relative to that property owner's right to use that
property as it is presently being used. Is the property owner here
tonight?
Hugh Humpert, 11240 Hubbell: This petition came up earlier, a few months back. We
are dealing with two lots here. There is a 30 foot lot and a 70
foot lot. It was requested to change it to R-1 and I had said, at
that time, that there was a possible sale pending there and it was
going to be used for parking for the Bone Yard, which is up in
front. From what I gather on this petition here, we are going to
leave the 30 foot lot plus 10 feet of the second lot. Is that what
I am seeing here?
Mr. Nagy: While though the zoning would allow a lot size of 60 feet, the
parcel is, in fact, 64 feet in width, so the zoning is consistent
with the lot size of the southerly parcel that the home is situated
on. So the northerly lot is being left in the commercial
classification.
Mr. Humpert: So the commercial would be the 36 feet of the one lot, so that
would be left alone. We are talking about the south 64 feet right
now.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
12290
Mr. Humpert: Everything I have heard so far tonight is in regards to how it
looks on the map and how everything is conforming to other pieces
of property. Everything around there, behind me is all C-2. In
front of me is C-2 and directly behind me, that little square would
never change from C-2. It seems like we are sticking out
war residential now and that doesn't seem like we are really conforming
now. After the last meeting, we were undecided how we were going
to go and it went this long and I thought maybe you had just
dropped it and left it like it was but then it came up again.
Mr. Engebretson: I think I can explain that. At the last public hearing you did
express concern about losing that commercial parcel to the north
because of a potential sale to the Bone Yard to extend their
parking. That was new information to us and taking that into
consideration, while there was no intent on our part to cause you
any hardship, we withdrew that petition, as you recall, and because
of the nature of how this process goes, it needs to be advertised
and posted, etc. , it is a long process and that is why it took
several months before it could come back, but it was our
understanding, based on testimony from you last time, that we
complied with your wishes to preserve the opportunity to make that
sale and at the same time to bring the residential portion into
compliance with its use. Relative to your comment regarding the
surrounding residential property, there is no way to make this
piece of property the same zoning district as those other lots are
because of the fact of its size, but at the same time the
residential zoning not only reflects its use but it is compatible
with the residential property to the south. We thought we were
complying with your interest and I am getting mixed signals from
you as to whether we have in fact done that.
Mr. Morrow: Did you say it was commercial in front of you?
Mr. Humpert: No I am sorry I meant to the north and to the east is all C-2.
Mr. Morrow: In reference to some of the other petitions that you heard we were
bringing them into conformity, we have an opportunity here to
rezone it to a use that it is actually being used for. In other
words, we are putting it in a conforming use. From a planning
standpoint I would like to see it approved with your concurrence.
It is a statement that I don't want commercial to go any further
into the neighborhood at some time in the distant future. I would
like to stop the commercial where the zoning line is now as opposed
to having it creep down further into the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Humpert: My feeling on this is if the person who owns the commercial
property to the north of me wanted to buy the whole thing, it would
he to my advantage to say it was all commercial property. I know I
am paying taxes on the residential because I am residential there
so I am kind of at your mercy. That was just my feelings that I
had kind of hoped that was the way it was left at the last meeting
just to leave it like it was.
12291
Mr. Engebretson: I think the record will show sir that we discussed the
possibility of accommodating your interest in keeping the northern
most portion of that preserved in a commercial zoning district so
you could enter into negotiations with the Bone Yard at some future
point in time but I am getting the feeling that we either misread
you then or you have since had a change of heart.
Mr. Humpert: It must have been a misunderstanding between us because I thought
the best thing would have been to leave it alone. I don't see any
real disadvantage in leaving it alone because it does conform with
everything around it.
Mr. Engebretson: As you have heard we have been asked to deal with this for the
reasons indicated and if you oppose this action, then you should be
sure to file a protest before the City Council holds their public
hearing to make sure that they understand how you feel because I
think there is a possibility we may have misunderstood each other
here. If when you think it through, you determine that is your
position, that is what you should do.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#9-467-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-8-1-20 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #214-92, proposing to rezone property located on the east
side of Hubbell Avenue, south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 35 from C-2 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-8-1-20 be approved for
�r the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a zoning
district which is compatible with the existing residential use of
the property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-conforming
status of the existing uses on the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12292
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-8-2-24
by Bill Keros requesting to operate a full service restaurant within an
existing shopping center located on the southeast corner of Newburgh and
Six Mile Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no problems with this petition. We have also received a
letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no
deficiencies or problems were found, therefore, they have no
objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating the restaurant will require 81 parking
spaces plus one additional for each member of the staff. The lot
is now, at most times during the day, at or near capacity. Given
the fact that Big Boy's and Wing Yees are already located at that
end of the plaza, persons wanting to use the petitioner's
restaurant will be hard pressed to find a parking place. Lastly,
we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to the petitioner, I would like to ask you about the
corner of Six Mile and Newburgh, right in the midst of a major
shopping center zoned general commercial and a small parking area,
we appear to have an acre or two of agricultural zoning at one of
the busiest intersections of the City. Don't you think that maybe
we ought to be taking a look at that one?
Mr. Nagy: That goes back to when the shopping center was first developed.
At that time there was a stand of trees at that intersection and
the thought was to protect that stand of trees to prevent any
satellite uses from locating at that intersection, such as banks,
service stations, which were so typical at mile road intersections.
The City deliberately left an agricultural zone to prevent
commercial development from being located on that corner. I would
agree that now with our vicinity control ordinances and site plan
approval ordinances that perhaps the agricultural no longer serves
its useful purposes.
Mr. Engebretson: It has served a useful purpose for some time but maybe the time
has come to change it.
Mr. Tent: I would just as soon leave it as it is. What is our hurry in going
ahead and soliciting a gas station or anything else on that corner.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, if we changed it wouldn't we just make it parking?
Mr. Nagy: Of course.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step up to the podium and tell us
your reasons for making this request.
12293
Van Kyriakopoulos, Bloomfield, Michigan: I am the owner of Kerby's Koney Island.
I came in a few months ago across the street and it was denied.
When I came last time you mentioned this location here would be
more appropriate. Every time I have been there the parking lot is
fir.- not full so that problem is no longer there. We feel there is a
need for our business there.
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us about your business.
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: We have 12 Coney Island places. We are at Fairlane Town
Center, Lakeside Mall, in Troy and Southfield, etc. It is more
like a full line restaurant. We have salads, dinners, waiter
service and everything.
Mr. Engebretson: Will you be seeking a liquor license there?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: No. We don't have any restaurants with liquor licenses.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have the Koney Island going in at L A Plaza on Plymouth
Road?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes.
Mr. Tent: With this restaurant are you proposing any signage in front of the
building?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes. What we are doing, we are taking over part of Minnesota
Fabrics place and the sign Minnesota Fabrics has now will be
replaced with two signs, the same square footage but part will be
ours and part will be Minnesota Fabrics.
Slow
Mr. Tent: Will that sign come before us Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it will.
Mr. Tent: Can you tell me how you are going to dispose of your garbage?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: We usually have garbage cans in back of the shopping center.
All shopping centers provide them.
Mr. Tent: When you say garbage cans, do you mean containers, the cement type?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes it will be in the back of the shopping center. It will be
metal.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, another thing I observed, what the traffic report
indicated about the parking in the lot, I have yet to see that lot
completely filled. I was wondering if any other commissioners had
noticed that also. There is ample parking.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the police department made their report based on full
capacity. It is my impression, having visited that area as a
consumer many times, I agree with the observation that it is rarely
more than half full.
12294
Mr. Tent: I want to make a comment on that because I am really concerned
about parking, as you probably know, and I would be opposed if this
didn't contain the parking but from my observations there is ample
parking.
rte..
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: The shopping center is already full. It's not like they are
going to expect a lot more business. The parking will not be
congested.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we are agreeing with you.
Mr. LaPine: You are moving in where Minnesota Fabrics is now. Is that correct?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Right.
Mr. LaPine: But you are only taking one half of the space?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: I am taking 4,000 square feet.
Mr. LaPine: I notice on your plan you have a banquet room. Do you normally
have banquet rooms in your other facilities?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: We have them at two other locations, the one in Southfield and
the one in Farmington Hills.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of banquets do you have?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Some people come in for a birthday party, 30 to 40 people. No
more than 50 people maximum. We don't have any liquor or anything
like that. We close at 9 o'clock at night. It is not something
New that goes on all night long.
Mr. LaPine: What time would this facility be open?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: It is open until 9 o'clock at night from 8:00 or 9:00 in the
morning.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you be open on Sunday?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Your seven tables you show, is that going to be like a booth type
seat on the back wall?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Where is your Farmington Hills restaurant located?
Mr. Kyriakopoulos: On Twelve Mile and Orchard Lake Road.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-2-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
12295
#9-468-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-8-2-24 by Bill Keros requesting to
operate a full service restaurant within an existing shopping center
located on the southeast corner of Newburgh and Six Mile Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-8-2-24 be approved
subject to a limitation on the maximum number of customer seats to be
provided in the restaurant of 162 seats for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject property 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.
subject to the following condition:
1) That the hours of operation as represented by the petitioner shall
not extend beyond the hours of 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
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:
Slaw AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann
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 92-8-2-26
by Vramantea Co. , Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a
carry-out restaurant with 12 seats within an existing shopping center
located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Levan Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
no deficiencies or problems were found. Also in our file is a
letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from
the Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted for our
consideration: (1) Both petitions are in well established centers.
(2) They do not change traffic flow nor detract from the parking
usage. (3) They do not conflict with the department's mission of
public safety.
12296
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Vincent Lorelli, 31788 Bristol, Farmington Hills: I am co-owner of the pizzeria.
When I bought the place a lot of our customers were taking the food
out and eating it in their cars so I thought it would be a good
idea to put in a couple of seats for those that wanted to eat
there instead of in their cars.
Mr. Engebretson: And then what happened?
Mr. Lorelli: Then I bought the tables. I didn't know about this whole process.
They are there now and then the Building Department informed me of
this.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you get a violation?
Mr. Lorelli: They just said they would wait until the outcome of this hearing.
Mr. Engebretson: A year ago you would have been in a lot of trouble but now we
have the ability to accommodate a request like this.
Mr. Tent: Are you proposing any signage on your building to go along with
this restaurant?
Mr. Lorelli: We are changing the sign. It is just a name change.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, would that comply with the ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: If it is just a name change within the overall sign area. It would
comply.
fir•
Mr. Tent: This would be something he would do on his own?
Mr. Nagy: He would work it out with the Inspection Department.
Mr. Alanskas: I had a chance to visit the gentleman's establishment and the
tables are very small and so are the chairs. I see no problem with
having them there.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-2-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-469-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-8-2-26 by Vramantea Co. , Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a carry-out restaurant with 12
seats within an existing shopping center located on the south side of
Plymouth Road, east of Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 92-8-2-26 be approved subject to a limitation on the
number of customer seats of 12 for the following reasons:
12297
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
„r use.
3) That the subject use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the subject use will aid in attracting customers to a shopping
center which has an inordinate amount of vacant units.
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 92-9-2-27
by Discount Tire Co. requesting to operate a tire store in an existing
building located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita
Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal. We have also received a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they find nothing
`ow inconsistent with the City ordinance. Lastly, we have received a
letter from Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The signs, as indicated,
appear to be conforming, but will still require Control Zone
approval. 2. The parking spaces on the east end of the property
appear to be 18 feet long. They are required to be 20 feet and
could be made to conform without going below the 15% minimum
landscape requirement. 3. The berm on the south lot line should be
at its highest and the plantings most dense in front of the
overhead door in order to shield the occupied residence on the
south side of Clarita.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Fred Denny, Vice President of Discount Tire Company, 903 Airport Drive, Ann Arbor,
48108: We approached the City Council and it sounds like we have approval
on the rezoning or at least they voted unanimously in recommending
the rezoning. We would like to take advantage of the existing
building that stood vacant at this particular parcel for two years
and install a Discount Tire Store, one of 238 that are already open
across the United States. We do nothing but mount passenger and
pick-up trucks wheels and tires. We do absolutely no under the
hood services. We have proposed a site plan. I have some
12298
renderings and drawings of the proposed site and what we would like
to do with it. Also, we are in full agreement with the parking
issue that the Planning Commission brought up. Also, we are in
full agreement with increasing the plantings to screen the one
overhead door on the south side of the building. We would like to
�► keep the existing one the way it is. We understand though that if
the zoning has been changed, we would need to change the faces. If
that does not fall within your zoning, we would agree to working
our signage in so it conforms to the zoning. (He presented the
renderings to the Commission)
Curt Felch, 1942 W. Liberty, Ann Arbor, 48103: I am the architect for Discount
Tire. Basically, let me tell you what this doesn't show. It
doesn't show the berm. We have submitted some revised elevations
and plans and they do show considerably more landscaping throughout
on the side facing Clarita. This one single bay should pretty well
be screened at that point. The berm at this point should be about
five feet. It should pretty well cover it up. We are planning on
planting evergreen trees in there, which get pretty thick and that
should cover that up. It has been mentioned that there were a
couple of questions about putting the bays in the back. There are
a few reasons why it is a more logical place to put them in the
front. One is the showroom, for obvious reasons, has to be in
front and the tire bays need to be near the showroom so the tire
store can have proper contact between the customer and the
installer putting the tires on the car. Secondly, there is no
access to the tire storage to the front. We can't really get in a
delivery truck at this entrance. It has to come in at the back.
That pretty much relegates the storage to the back. Lastly, I am
sure the department wouldn't want the open doors in the back. It
`r.- would be rather noisy and having them in the front, the traffic on
Middlebelt Road does a good job of masking that noise. Basically,
we tried to put in as much planting as possible to make it a more
pleasant site, certainly more than is existing right now. I can
speak from experience that Discount Tire takes good care of their
plantings and landscaping and their stores in general. If you have
any questions, I can answer them.
Mr. Morrow: The question I would have would be do any of your current stores
exist in such close proximity to residential as we have here?
Mr. Denny: Yes sir they do. In Troy, Michigan at Rochester Road north of Big
Beaver. We have the same situation. We did a noise level study.
We showed it to the City Council and the way the site plan is the
only real residents that we are going to affect at all is the one
directly across from the one side door, the south elevation. Those
noise levels that are there are way less than what is coming off
Middlebelt right now with normal traffic. All of our operations
will be inside and the only thing we do that creates any noise is
to let the air out of the tire and also the air gun to put the lug
nuts back on the car. There is no banging or pounding or any of
those things and the air guns we use have a muffler on them. If
you would like to see those decibel levels, we did the study for
the City Council and they were real happy.
12299
Mr. Morrow: Was that with the doors open or with the doors closed.
Mr. Denny: With the doors open. The only time we shut the door is is if it
gets below 200. All of our businesses keep the doors open.
Mr. Morrow: Is that because it is not climate controlled?
Mr. Denny: We have an infrared type heating system back there. What that does
is actually warms any solid objects that are there and it warms the
floor and the machines, etc.
Mr. Morrow: Some of the shops we have had before us before, we have had some
complaints about sometimes the help likes to listen to music and
sometimes the decibel level gets up there.
Mr. Denny: I started with Discount Tire when I was 17 years old and at that
time I noticed myself and a few of my compatriots that were
changing tires liked to turn the radio up. I think that has
passed. Not that young kinds 17 or 18 years old still don't like
to do that but being the number one tire company in the United
States, as far as being independently owned by two people, I see
at least twice a month every one of the stores in my region, which
is 34, and I make sure there is no loud music. In today's age you
can't run a competitive business that way and I can guarantee you
they won't hear the radio. They might hear the Wendy's with their
loudspeaker but they won't hear us.
Mrs. Fandrei: I have been concerned about the overhead doors because the most
objectionable thing about Sears, as you go north on Middlebelt, the
overhead door section of the auto repair is unsightly. I am just
'Tiltr having a problem with having two overhead doors on Middlebelt. All
of the surrounding businesses are very attractive. Having the
overhead doors open all day long doesn't present a good view of the
business. You mentioned you have these because the customers have
better access. Are the customers allowed in the bays?
Mr. Denny: Yes they are, simply because there is nothing dangerous going on
there. We are not an auto repair facility. We just mount tires on
vehicles. It is a work area but it is not dangerous. It is a very
safe work area. As Curt explained, to move the doors from the
front, I think, could have an impact. Our biggest complaint at the
City Council was the one door that was across from Clarita Street
and there was one house on the other side of Clarita Street and
they worried about being impacted. If we move them to the back,
not only is it a hardship for us because with semi's going back
there, there is no room to turn but I think the biggest impaction
would be on the apartment buildings behind there whereas Middlebelt
Road right now creates all kinds of noise and it is a C-2 district
there.
Mrs. Fandrei: I don't see any problems with semi's turning around back there.
12300
Mr. Denny: I am talking about the semi's coming into the front of the building
to unload tires or pick up tires. If we put our service bays where
the customers' cars pull in, in the back of the building, and we
also have semi's which bring in tires, then you have conflicting
customers' passenger vehicles and semi's trying to back in.
Mrs. Fandrei: Then your semi's are going to be in the back?
Mr. Denny: Everything will be in the back.
Mrs. Fandrei: Because you are changing tires all day you need these doors up?
Mr. Denny: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: You have to have three of them?
Mr. Denny: Yes. Most of our stores in the Detroit region have eight bays.
They have four double bays. This one will have two in front and
one facing south towards Clarita. The reason we are doing the one
facing south towards Clarita is in case someone pulls in with a
pickup truck with a little camper on the back, we need a little
more height there. That one is taller on that side. That will be
like an overflow.
Mrs. Fandrei: You are indicating you are putting in evergreens on the south side
to shield that. What is the date of your revised plan? We have
9/2/92.
Mr. Denny: I submitted those yesterday. I don't believe I put an extra date
on those.
Imw
Mrs. Fandrei: These bays, are they going to be as large as for a gas station?
Mr. Denny: They will be about the same size but you wouldn't see a lot of
stuff inside. We have a lot less equipment than most auto repair
related facilities. We have a red tire changer. We have red
racks. Everything is color coded in the back. I apologize because
after being in front of the Planning Commission three or four
months ago and giving a presentation and handing out brochures and
pamphlets, etc. and then going to City Council and getting approved
unanimously, I kind of thought when we were working on a waiver use
approval that it was okay for Discount Tire to be on this property.
I was thinking this was just a waiver use and you were all familiar
with my presentation three or four months ago.
Mrs. Fandrei: But at the same time we are protective of our community.
Mr. Denny: I understand but again I misinterpreted.
Mr. Engebretson: You went through a zoning process and now you are going through a
special waiver use and site plan approval, which is a separate
process, and each of those steps involves different issues so
tonight we are concerned with strictly the matter of the site plan.
We are not at all concerned about the zoning and last time we
should have been concerned about the zoning and not about site
plans but obviously the Council got into site plans with you?
12301
Mr. Denny: Yes. Again I apologize.
Mr. Engebretson: No need to apologize.
Mr. Morrow: I notice on the agenda it doesn't say they are requesting waiver of
4111.
use.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what it is.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make it technically correct.
Mr. Gniewek: What do you do with the old tires? How do you store them? Where
do you keep them? How long are they on the site? Are they
outside?
Mr. Denny: All the old tires are kept inside the building. They are hauled
weekly by a registered tire recycler. There are Michigan laws now
that you have to use a registered tire reclycer to haul away the
old tires. The good companies are complying with those rules.
Discount Tire has for over two years even before the state mandated
those constrictions. To sum it up, all the tires are held inside
the building and they are hauled away weekly.
Mr. Gniewek: Will you be selling any used tires?
Mr. Denny: The used tires would just be passenger and they would probably fall
within 3% to 5% of our total volume. Normally what they are, are
brand new tire takeoffs. When say a car dealership located in the
area would like to put on brand new tires, we take the existing
original equipment tires on trade and then we would resale those
Now but we are not a used tire type situation.
Mr. Gniewek: Do you deal with all name brands?
Mr. Denny: We buy factory direct from Michelin, Goodyear, General, and B.F.
Goodrich. We try to buy as many American tires as we possibly can.
We also handle some private brand names. Tires that are made by
the Kelly-Springfield Corporation or some subsidiaries of Goodyear,
Michelin, etc.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Denny, two of my concerns have been addressed. Number one was
the music, which I was directly concerned with. The other one was
outside storage. There would be nothing definitely outside?
Mr. Denny: I will guarantee you there will be absolutely no outside storage
and also no outside display of merchandise.
Mr. Tent: I am satisfied this is not a full service facility. All you are
going to do is what you have indicated previously at the zoning
hearing. It is strictly tires and you are not going to balance
tires. You are not going to come in at a later date and say to
enhance my operation I am going to have to add some other facility
to it?
12302
Mr. Denny: We do balance tires. When a customer comes in and buys the tires,
no matter how good of service we have, if the tire leaks and
bounces up and down the road, he is going to be mad at us. We do
balance tires but we do not align the vehicles.
r..
Mr. Tent: That is what I meant. You are only rotating tires. What time do
you start in the morning and what time do you close shop?
Mr. Denny: We start at eight o'clock Monday through Saturday. Monday through
Friday we close at six. On Saturday we close at five. We are not
open any Sundays. These are our hours all across the country. We
have a couple of stores located within auto service type malls. We
tried that. We don't like that idea any more. Some of those will
stay open until 7:00 p.m. but all my Michigan stores are 8:00 a.m.
until 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Tent: Your delivery of tires, what are those hours?
Mr. Denny: We normally don't allow the trucks to come in during peak traffic
periods because it ties up two or three of our people to unload the
trucks. Normally we have our tires delivered early in the morning
or mid-afternoon, between lunch hour and 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Tent: Early in the morning, that is not eight o'clock is it?
Mr. Denny: It is usually between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Between when people
have to go to work and when their lunch hour comes. We are busier
in the morning before they go to work and then at lunch time we
normally have a little rush of eight or ten cars and then we get
busy from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Now
Mr. Tent: I want to compliment your architect. He did a nice site plan
presentation here. He put in all the greenery that he was supposed
to have.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the landscaping, you do have a very large assortment
and it is nice but I see nothing in regard to a sprinkling system.
Mr. Denny: I don't think I have even talked to Curt about that but yes there
will be sprinklers. You can make that contingent.
Mr. LaPine: If you will explain to me one more time, your two overhead doors on
the east elevation are for cars?
Mr. Denny: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How many cars can you service at one time?
Mr. Denny: Out of those east elevations, four.
Mr. LaPine: Do you use hydraulic lifts there?
Mr. Denny: We use platform jacks and we also, with the newer, smaller cars and
trucks, we use a hydraulic lift but there is nothing below the
floor and it only raises the car approximately 12 inches off the
ground.
12303
Mr. LaPine: No renovations as far as breaking up the floor?
Mr. Denny: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: The south elevation, that door is used for vans or something
larger?
Mr. Denny: Taller vehicles.
Mr. LaPine: The one on the west elevation is the one you use to unload for
storage?
Mr. Denny: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: As you well know, there must be at least five or six tire stores
within that vicinity within a half mile radius. What makes you
think you can be successful when we have had a turnover of tire
stores in that location it seems forever?
Mr. Denny: I understand. Number one, we think there is room for Discount
Tire in Livonia. We think it would be a great place for us to do
business. I guess, if I could just explain, our viewpoint is we
are the largest independent tire dealer in the United States. We
are owned by two people completely. We don't franchise. There is
not a franchise available, there never has been, there never will
be. We control our destiny by our employees and by our service and
by our customer satisfaction and we just think there is room in
Livonia for another quality tire company.
Mr. LaPine: There probably is room but what I am saying is when you are
S,, competing against all those stores plus Sears, to me we are going
to be right back to where we were before. Some of these stores are
going to be changing hands. I voted against this proposal when it
came in for the rezoning. My mind hasn't changed. I think it is a
bad location for a tire store. I don't think we need another tire
store in that location. I was just curious how you came to the
conclusion that you could be successful at this location when we
have had a number of stores in that location that were not
successful.
Mr. Denny: We have been in Michigan for over thirty years and we have not
closed a store yet.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you do any work outside?
Mr. Denny: No, never.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you ever store vehicles there overnight?
Mr. Denny: No sir. In fact, we would be glad to put up signs in the parking
lot for no overnight parking. Since our inventory is all held
inside the building and we are not waiting for parts or pieces or
fenders, etc. to come in, there is no need to have a car sitting
there vacant and we will put up signs that say no overnight parking
and we won't allow semi's or anybody to park there.
12304
Mr. Engebretson: You realize all of this is being taken down verbatim and going
out to a worldwide television network.
Mr. Denny: I have been here before.
So ' Mr. Engebretson: Regarding your wall signs, since you are only permitted one and
your rendering shows two, I understand that the east sign is the
one you are interested in. Is that correct?
Mr. Denny: Yes sir.
Nancy King, 18947 Melvin: My only concern is the traffic that we have gotten from
businesses at that location before. We also get cars coming from
Wendy's down Clarita and then north on Melvin past my house.
Occasionally, in fact within the last two weeks, we have gotten a
semi coming from Middlebelt and when he couldn't turn north onto
Melvin, he turned south and went through the subdivision, I assume,
to Curtis and back out to Middlebelt. That is my only concern
about this. I would like to see something in there rather than
have the building empty, but the traffic with the apartments on
Clarita and the new houses going in across the road, the traffic is
horrendous. That is my only concern.
Mr. Gniewek: I might make a suggestion as part of the resolution that at the
driveway that faces onto Clarita, have a "No Right Turn" sign so
traffic would not be allowed to exit into the subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the petitioner would like to address that.
Mr. Denny: Mainly, I think the most important thing is our traffic generation
`, is going to be a lot less than the old Baseline Drugs or the old
Foodland. Also, we won't have anyone sitting in the parking lot
enjoying whatever they purchased inside the building. They will be
out on the road trying to enjoy their purchase, hopefully. I think
we will generate a lot less traffic.
Mr. Engebretson: How about restricting right turns?
Mr. Denny: I would be glad to put up a "No Right Turn" sign or "Turn Left
Only" whatever you suggest. There is no reason for our customers,
unless they live in that subdivision, to ever go that way.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#9-470-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-27 by Discount Tire Co. requesting
to operate a tire store in an existing building located on the west side
of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-27 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 9-3-92 prepared by Felch Architecture
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
12305
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
‘0111.. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 92-101 dated 9-3-92
prepared by Felch Architecture which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
4) That an underground sprinkler system shall be installed.
5) That a "No Right Turn" sign shall be installed at the drive exiting
onto Clarita Avenue.
6) That there shall be no outside work to be performed on vehicles.
7) That there shall be no outside display of merchandise.
8) That the hours of operation shall be restricted to the hours of
8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. until
5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject 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.
New 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow
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 92-9-2-28
by Ford Motor Land Development Corporation/UAW-Ford NEDTC requesting
waiver use approval to construct a new day care center to be located on
the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
12306
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
Ann Arbor Road has not been dedicated to its full extent in
accordance with the City's Master Throughfare Plan. They further
state their offices would have no objections to the waiver use
proposal.
Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
it is their recommendation that an access road be provided along
the west side of the building. This would allow emergency vehicles
to gain access to the rear of the building in the event of an
emergency. They state their approval is also contingent upon a
further review of an on-site hydrant with adequate volume and
within the required distances from the building. The location is
to be determined when the location of the Fire Department
connection is known.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they
find nothing inconsistent with the City ordinance.
Also, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. A protective wall will be required along the south and west
property lines where this site abuts residential property. 2. The
proposed fence surrounding the play area must be at least 5 feet
high. 3. There is a fence proposed for the front yard, which is
not allowed. 4. The dumpster enclosure would not normally be
allowed in the front yard, however, we can offer no better location
than that which is proposed. 5. Class "A" sod and underground
sprinklers will be required for the entire project, including the
public right of way. 6. Three handicapped parking spaces will be
*low required. 7. A complete sign package should be submitted for
review. 8. The existing buildings and maintenance of property in
general have been an ongoing problem. We strongly suggest that no
approvals or permits be issued until the existing buildings have
been demolished and removed.
We now have a letter submitted from the company representing the
applicant for the waiver use proposal which enclosed a petition
containing approval of 55% of the residential property owners
within 400 feet of the proposed project as required by the Zoning
Ordinance. They went on to say the overwhelming majority of those
individuals whom they spoke to signed the petition. They stated
regarding the homeowners on Minton who abut the southern border of
the nursery property, many of these people are not opposed to the
proposed project but were unwilling to sign the petition unless
they were deeded 15' onto the rear of their property, as had been
previously negotiated a few years back as part of a proposed
shopping center/office complex. At this time, the appropriate
parties are working towards transferring ownership of this 15'
strip from the old nursery property to the affected homeowners
along Minton. They ended by saying that at a special meeting held
by the Dover/Arbor Neighborhood Association on 9/21/92 the concept
and site plan of the proposed child care facility was
overwhelmingly endorsed by those in attendance.
12307
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please give us your name and address and
tell us why you are making this request.
Oz Wagner, 45501 Helm St. , Plymouth, MI: I am an architect with DeMattia &
Associates. I have been nominated as the spokesman for a group of
people that are here this evening. I have two or three gentlemen
here from Ford Motor Land Development. I also have some people
here from RCCM, which is a child care consultant that is involved
in the project. Also here this evening is an attorney representing
the current property owner, Mr. Chuck Tangora. I would like to
give you some general information about the project and then get
into some of the actual specifics on the site plan, the design of
the building and then answer some questions.
First of all the actual name of the project is the UAW/Ford Child
Care Center. The actual owner of the project is a non-profit
organization. Its name is UAW/Ford National Education Development
and Training Center, again this being a non-profit organization.
This center is available to children of UAW/Ford employees
basically in the southeastern Michigan area. It is open to roughly
13 different locations. Enrollment in this center is planned to be
around 170 at a maximum size. There will be 30 staff members. The
ages of the children are from six weeks to 12 years of age.
Currently we are planning the hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m.
until 7:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday.
I would like to have you look at the site plan. (He presented the
site plan to the Commission) This is approximately a four-acre
site located at the west end of the old Christenson's Nursery. The
actual child care center is located in the center of the property
`w with parking on the south side of the facility with access off Ann
Arbor Road. The south end is the actual child play area. There is
parking area for 68 cars with access off Ann Arbor Road with three
lanes, one coming in and two going out so we won't have people
stacking up here. A couple of important things is we are looking
at a 40 foot wide greenbelt along the residential property on the
south and west. This greenbelt would be 40 feet wide. It would be
4 feet high and landscaped to be a buffer strip between the
residential properties. That is what the petitioner designed.
This is a building floor plan. (He presented the plan to the
Commission) Mainly in the center is the administration center and
all the child care facilities wrap around it. A couple of
important things is that the different areas where the children are
playing have access doors. What that does is allow this area
around the outside to become play area. That gets into one of the
questions that was raised during review, that is the requirement of
the fence in the front yard. That is something that is required
with the way this facility operates. (He presented a rendering of
the facility plus samples of materials. )
A couple of ideas that came up during the review process have to
deal with the requirements of a wall. Those things are planned to
1230E
go before the Zoning Board. We do plan on doing that. I did
resubmit some drawings to the Planning Department on Monday. Part
of that resubmittal was a group of notes stating we would go to the
Zoning Board. Also, that the fence that would be put around the
play area would be five feet high. The dumpster right now is
New proposed ro togo right in here.
p p g (He pointed this out on the plan)
It turns out this is the best location, the reason being if you
look at the floor plan, on the east side of the entry there is a
little trash holding area. The way it is planned to work is during
the day, imagine we have children in here six weeks and older,
generally we have a lot of diapers. Those are planned on being
collected and held in this area and then hauled out to the
dumpster. It is an unusual situation for the dumpster to be in the
front yard but we really don't have a lot of choices at this point
because of access. A truck has to get in here to empty it. We put
it on the east side to keep it away from the residential
properties.
Mr. Tent: Is the dumpster primarily for diapers?
Mr. Wagner: It would be for any other refuse that we generated in the facility.
Mr. Tent: I was going to say if diapers were a problem, maybe you could get
the cloth diapers and just wash them and we could eliminate the
diapers.
Mr. Wagner: You would just have to collect them and haul them away.
Mr. Tent: There is no food or anything like that that will be served?
Sow Mr. Wagner: There is a small kitchen but you are still going to have baby
formula and those things. There is going to be some food served.
Mr. Tent: But it is for primarily the diapers?
Mr. Wagner: Yes. Also, in the document that I resubmitted on Monday, it did
indicate we would sod the property, the whole project. We will
provide a lawn irrigation system and I did indicate where three
handicap spaces would be located and the ramp. Also, signage was
brought up. At this point we have not provided you any information
on signage. We would like to do that at another point. We will
come back. Also, the existing buildings on the property, as part
of the purchase agreement between the UAW Child Care Center and the
existing property owner, part of the purchase agreement requires
the existing property owner to demolish all of the existing
structures. It includes the property involved in this petition
plus the ones to the east. So that has been taken care of. Also,
I have talked to the Fire Marshal. His main concern about getting
access is in case of some type of emergency, being able to get
paramedics back there. I don't want to put any kind of road back
there. It is not for fire protection equipment. It is really to
get paramedics in. I did have a conversation with him. I don't
think we worked out an answer yet but we do have a number of gates
that are planned in the fencing in the front yard. I am hoping I
12309
will be able to talk to him some more and if there is a problem
they can get in there and get stretchers in there. There are ways
to get in the back area. The other question has to do with some of
the property owners on the south side. There are basically nine
property owners to the south of the development that were promised
Now several years back when there was another development 15 feet of
property. There is a willingness currently on the part of this
particular project to do that. The documents I submitted on Monday
indicated we would be reducing the property along here by 15 feet
and that it would be deeded to those property owners. Some details
will have to be worked out but it is in the process right now.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you covered most of the points of concern.
Mr. Morrow: Getting back to your discussions with the Fire Marshal, if this
were approved, before it became final there would have to be
something in the record indicating that all the concerns of the
Fire Marshal regarding this facility had been addressed and he had
been satisfied.
Mr. McCann: The dumpster, you have some type of enclosure in mind for it?
Mr. Wagner: We will put a screen wall around the dumpster with a set of gates
on it.
Mr. McCann: Anything in mind at this point?
Mr. Wagner: Typically that would be made out of treated wood product that would
enclose the dumpster and we can also landscape around it.
`,. Mr. McCann: Your western side, you are going to have some type of barrier
besides the landscaping between you and the subdivision?
Mr. Wagner: Yes. (He pointed it out on the plan) It is really a greenbelt.
There is an existing fence there now.
Mr. McCann: Have you met with the neighbors already?
Mr. Wagner: Yes we have. We made a presentation to the homeowners. They have
a very active homeowners association. A week or so ago we did
meet, as was stated in the one correspondence, and proposed the
development to them. We did receive some signatures. They also
voted in favor of the development. Also, you will find the
petition that we submitted that was required by the zoning
ordinance. We received 58 signatures. There was a willingness on
the group of people surrounding the development that were in favor
of it.
Mr. LaPine: How often will the dumpster be dumped? The problem I have, you are
going to generate a lot of diapers. You might not have any
problems during the winter months but if they lay in that dumpster
for any length of time, it is going to cause mosquitoes and flies.
Jim Green: I am from Resources For Child Care Management. Typically it would
be daily or three times a week if that is all that is necessary but
'` we wouldn't be opposed to doing it daily.
12310
Mr. LaPine: Those diapers, when they are moved from the holding area to the
dumpster, are they in plastic bags and tied?
Mr. Green: They are all bagged individually. They are in two sets of bags.
;` First they are dumped in a plastic bag and then dumped in a waste
basket and then the plastic bag in the waste basket is tied up so
actually there are two layers of plastic in between the diapers.
Most of the garbage is food because there will be between 150 and
200 lunches served a day plus breakfast and snacks. Most of it
really isn't diapers.
Mrs. Fandrei: Perhaps you could explain to us why the layout with exterior doors,
that they have the need for the fencing in the front.
Mr. Green: Typically we think child care centers should be places for
childhood so we like to put them in a park like setting and we like
to have every classroom have access to the outside. That leaves
you with a wraparound playground. We think it works very well.
You are going to have to enclose the whole area so the children are
contained in the area and it makes for a better program. Children
are going to spend up to ten hours a day, five days a week, fifty
weeks a year here so for us we think that park like setting is very
important. The easy access outside is what then leaves you with
doors directly to the playground from each component. If you are
going to have a double loaded corridor so the children can get out
and go to the rooms at this end and that end, it leads you to the
wraparound playground.
Mrs. Fandrei: How many doors do you have on the north side, which would be the
parking lot side?
Sur
Mr. Wagner: There are three of them.
Mrs. Fandrei: There would be no way of resetting those rooms so they wouldn't
open to the front.
Mr. Green: It is really hard. We have gone through a lot of different
designs. It is really hard to deal in a space efficient way to
have a single loaded corridor where everybody has access. The
only way to do it, you would have to deprive those front rooms of
direct access.
Mr. Wagner: To help you out a little bit you will see on this rendering the
fencing has brick tiers and it has a wrought iron fence.
Mr. Alanskas: On the assumption you get Planning Commission approval and Council
approval, when did you plan to break ground and how long until
completion?
Mr. Green: We are hoping to start this fall and we would like to be open by
the start of the next school year, which is September.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this proposed waiver use?
12311
Dave Cisco, 38812 Grandon: I am President of that neighborhood association that
was brought up a little earlier tonight. We are the Dover/Arbor
Neighborhood Association. We represent about 275 familes in the
area. We learned of this project approximately two weeks ago. We
called a special meeting to gather 51 very vocal people,
Nu. approximately a week ago, and Mr. Wagner and his associate came in
and presented the plans they had. Substantially, as he indicated
tonight, if anything, I would say I heard a couple of minor
enhancements to it. We did, as a neighborhood association vote
overwhelmingly by a margin of 3 to 1 in favor of endorsing this
particular proposal. I would like to point out that the people
that were against it, approximtely 2/3rds of those folks that were
against it were folks that lived adjacent to the property. They
did have some mixed reactions. There were some things that
concerned them. Things like timing. They only had a week or two
to consider this. There were some prior agreements with Mr.
Scapatticci, the current owner, especially the 15 feet. It sounds
like there is some progress being made toward resolving that.
There was the question of a wall versus a fence, berms, etc. came
up during the meeting. In any case, the association voted not to
recommend any kind of changes at this particular point but just to
go ahead with the endorsement as it stood. We figured we would
leave the voicing of individual concerns to those, the minority
opinion. I wanted to say what they have represented to us so far
is true and there was an overwhelming endorsement. There were some
objections. There are still some things to be worked out.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Cisco, did the association prefer the berm to the wall?
Mr. Cisco: That never came to a vote. It was difficult to tell. In the last
go around with Mr. Scapatticci, the overwhelming preference was for
a wall. In this particular case, there were some in favor of a
berm and some in favor of a wall. It never came to a vote.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for sharing that information with us and for taking the
initiative to determine the feeling of the association.
Michael Powell, 38962 Minton: I have been asked to speak on behalf of a few of the
residents that border the south end of this property and what would
be the south end of the Scapatticci property just east of the
proposed site. I don't think enough about the conveyance of the 15
feet, we haven't discussed that enough here. I don't know if the
Commission recalls back in 1988 when Mr. Scapatticci wanted to get
the use waiver and the rezoning, there was a great deal of
resistance to that. The Council here suggested that the residents
and Mr. Scapatticci get together and resolve the matter. They did
that through the neighborhood association. They worked on an
agreement and they thought they had an agreement and now it appears
to some of these individuals that all of a sudden things have
changed. Perhaps Mr. Tangora, who is here on behalf of Mr.
Scapatticci, can for the record state what exactly are the
intentions of Mr. Scapatticci with regard to the conveyance of the
15 feet. This is, I would add, not an attempt to extract land from
Mr. Scapatticci but rather a way for the residents that border that
r..
12312
area to achieve some degree of privacy and protection to their use
and enjoyment of their homes. So I think the Commission should
take this agreement, or these statements on behalf of Mr.
Scapatticci, into consideration in deciding whether or not to grant
�.. the use waiver. I think we ought to hear in some definitive terms
what Ford/UAW plans.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand your concerns sir. We recall the same points that
you just outlined. I would simply mention that is not really our
responsibility to get into those private negotiations. However, it
was something that was a matter of public record before. I don't
know who Mr. Tangora represents. Mr. Wagner did say in his
testimony that there are negotiations under way to make good on
that promise. That was a matter of record as I recall. Mr.
Wagner, could you clarify that? Again, I don't know who Mr.
Tangora represents so I don't think it is fair to call on him to
answer that unless he decides to.
Mr. Tangora: I would be happy to. I represent Mr. Scapatticci and have been
representing him for a number of years since he originally
purchased the property. It has been Mr. Scapatticci's intent to
convey the 15 feet to all the people. I think there are nine
property owners along Minton and it has gone through several years
of a down period for Mr. Scapatticci and I am sure you will recall,
there have been several site plans where Mr. Scapatticci brought
them in and for some reason or another, one being the economy, he
has never gone forth with that. It doesn't mean that he has
changed his mind or his agreement that he was going to convey this.
During this period of time he has been purchasing the property on a
Land Contract. The Land Contract will be paid off when this deal
closes so until that time happens he cannot convey legal title to
the property owners and that is one of the reasons for the delay.
For a number of years he was going to develop the property
immediatedly, the contract would have paid off and the land would
have been conveyed to the property owners at that time. This is
the opportunity he has been waiting for to do that. If the
Commission has any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, would it be fair to interpret your remarks that when
this transaction is concluded, it would be Mr. Scapatticci that
would be deeding over the 15 feet?
Mr. Tangora: Yes Mr. Scapatticci will deal with the 15 feet of the property he
retains. It is my understanding Ford Motor Company will be deeding
over the 15 feet on the area they are purchasing.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like it is all going to happen but it can't happen
until the Land Contract is terminated.
Mr. Powell: I am well aware of that. My point specifically being the Council
granted the waiver use prior and the rezoning based upon the
agreement. That was taken into consideration. We just ask that
the Council help the citizens get the benefit of that agreement and
not have it be ripped out from underneath them, that is have the
land rezoned. That is their concern.
12313
Mr. Engebretson: The zoning has already occurred.
Mr. Powell: I understand that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there something on the proposed site plan that would
be a hard representation that there is no intent to use that last
15 feet?
Mr. Nagy: The revised plan that they prepared does omit that property.
Mr. Engebretson: If this is approved here and by the City Council, this approval
is based on a site plan that represents that 15 feet as being split
off. That, combined with Mr. Tangora's comments, in my mind is
very reassuring that this will all happen.
Mr. Powell: I just wanted to get something on the record.
Mr. Osborn, 9486 Patton: My property backs up to the proposed development. The
acoustics in this room are not that great when you are sitting in
the back so I may have some repetitive questions. There currently
are mature ash trees in the proposed lot. Do they intend to keep
them there?
Mr. Wagner: There are a few trees that are planned in the front end facing Ann
Arbor Road that will be saved.
Mr. Osborn: That would be the mature ash trees?
Mr. Wagner: I can't specifically say that. We show some existing trees. I
can't personally say those are ash trees. I had a landscape
architect visit the site and I told him to retain the trees, the
good specimens that were not in the way of the development.
Mr. Osborn: On your drawing, the three 8 foot ash trees that I am referring to
are not saved and I would ask that be considered.
Mr. Wagner: We will consider it.
Mr. Osborn: 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. are the proposed hours. Are those
negotiable? I am presuming you are expecting to have people there
at 6:00 a.m. with children and until 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Green: Those probably are necessary because people will be using the
center from a number of plants and on a number of shifts. The
seven o'clock hours are for people who work the second shift and
arrange for someone else to pick up their child. With this sort of
apparent work force it is hard to shrink those hours. There are
not 170 kids there at 4:30 p.m. The numbers reach their peak in
the middle of the day and then from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. they
build to a peak and from 3:30 p.m. on, they go down. So one would
expect those hours past 5:00 p.m. , you are lucky if you have more
than 25 kids.
Mr. Osborn: That was another question, the hours when you were anticipating the
most traffic. Some core samples were taken today. Any results on
New those?
12314
Mr. Wagner: We took sore borings. I had a soil testing agency take soil blends
to determine a sore bearing test. I do not have the results yet.
Mr. Osborn: Did I hear there are going to be 68 automobile slots and up to 30
staff?
Now
Mr. Wagner: That is correct.
Mr. Osborn: Is this parking lot going to be lit?
Mr. Wagner: Yes it will.
Mr. Osborn: Will there be any shielding of that lighting from the residences?
Mr. Wagner: The fixtures that we will place in the parking area will be a
fixture that directs the light downward so it is not like a wall
mount. We won't be doing any floodlighting. The parking lot will
be lit by poles with fixtures on the top directing the light down
and when we locate those fixtures I will pay attention to the
location so we don't spill over into the residential properties.
Mr. Engebretson: Are those fixtures not identified on the site plan at the present
time?
Mr. Wagner: Currently they are not.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that normal Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: It is not normal. We would ask that they show them on the plans.
'fir. Mr. Osborne: The current ordinance is that a division between residential and a
development is a minimum five foot, maximum seven foot concrete
type wall. Do you intend to, at this current time, go to the
Zoning Board to waive that?
Mr. Wagner: Yes we do. The proposal that we have here today and it was
presented to and signed by the homeowners, was presented as a 40
foot wide greenbelt. There was no wall proposed so we do plan on
going to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Osborne: There is no way that the children could get near that fence to get
their fingers bitten by the puppies?
Mr. Wagner: I stated previously that the existing fence that is there along
the residences will stay. On top of that we will have another five
foot fence around the play area so you will have two fences that
they have to get through.
Mr. Osborne: You are going to draw from approximately 13 communities?
Mr. Wagner: Thirteen different plant locations.
Mr. Osborne: The demolition, including gas pumps and the excavation of the
tanks, is that planned with Mr. Scapatticci's responsibility?
Mr. Wagner: That is correct.
12315
Mr. Osborne: I want to comment that I would prefer to have the dumpster emptied
daily.
Mr. Engebretson: The gentleman raised several very pertinent points. I am
%ft. concerned the site plan is incomplete regarding the lighting issue.
I understand his concern and it is something that should be shown
on there. We are always concerned about lights intruding on
residential properties abutting these types of uses and I am
disappointed it is not there. I am not sure what we can do about
that. How high are these standards going to be?
Mr. Wagner: Typically they would be on 24 foot poles.
Mr. Engebretson: What would the hours of operation be for these fixtures?
Mr. Wagner: They would be on a time clock so they would shut off when the
facility is closed. They would actually be on a photo cell so they
would come on at certain times in the winter when they needed to
come on. In general, they would only be on during operational
hours. They were not meant to be on all night long.
Mr. Engebretson: I am interested in the amount of parking that you provide. It
appears to be significantly greater than what would be required by
the ordinance. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Wagner: There are 30 staff and also that roughly give us an additional 38
spaces for people coming in to park to bring children and coming in
to pick up their children. It is just something that is a comfort
level.
'tar Mr. Engebretson: On the other side of the coin, I am wondering if there is
something planned for this facility that requires a large parking
lot that is not normally associated with a child care center.
Mr. Green: Our main concern is not enough. We know there is a typical
distribution of parents using the center so we don't need 40 drop
off spaces. There are some times when there may be a jam up and
what we are concerned about is if there are not enough, then people
will do things in unsafe ways that put children who are being
walked to the building in harm. We could cut it closer but because
there is enough room, we would like to have this parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Finally, I am interested in your opening remarks Mr. Wagner where
I understood you to say that this is a non-profit organization
owned by Ford and the UAW and it was open to UAW/Ford employees.
Does that mean that it is not open to Ford employees that are not
members of the UAW?
Mr. Wagner: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: The other comments I would have would be for our staff. We can
probably deal with this subject to them cleaning up that plan to
properly show the light standards prior to the approval of the
minutes if it is approved.
`w-
12316
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Also it is my impression that there was an expectation that the
site plan was to be revised to indicate that a protective wall
would be shown. I am not sure if it does or doesn't.
\r•
Mr. Shane: The notes indicate that they are aware of the wall but they are
intending to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a waiver. The
same comments for the fence.
Mr. Engebretson: Should the site plan indicate the wall that they can then get
waived off?
Mr. Nagy: The note is on the plan and it covers that.
Mr. Engebretson: What about the Fire Marshal? Would the same thing apply there
that we discussed regarding the light standards that in the next
few days there be some accommodation worked out with the Fire
Marshal? I am concerned about the position taken by the Fire
Marshal that they say they have made progress on but they don't
have it included and I feel it is inappropriate to move on it with
the assumption that it will be taken care of.
Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal always has superintending control. He would not
be issued a permit to commence construction until he satisfies the
code requirements. What he needs to do and what he is now doing to
resolve that by way of the gates or the access for emergency has a
minor impact on the site plan. I don't see how that will
materially change the site plan layout. You are not diminishing
the public safety aspect. It will have to be resolved to that
department's satisfaction. I am satisfied that it will have
minimal impact on the site plan. In the event that it has a
material impact on it, where there is a significant change on that
site plan, then we would bring those plans back to the Planning
Commission for your further review.
Mr. Morrow: Getting back to the Fire Marshal, it was my concern, I guess I was
the first to express that, for us not to recognize what he told us
as it related to the site plan, and then to be assured that in
regards to what he said it was going to be taken care of at another
level and the only way we would have it brought before us was if it
was handled under separate cover. Am I confused in this area or am
I missing the point John?
Mr. Nagy: I don't think you are missing the point. I think the way it was
explained it is not an impact such as a roadway, not an impact with
respect to bringing in apparatus in terms of fire rigs, etc. around
that building. If it dealt with that kind of an issue, then I
think we should sit down and have that worked out on the site plan.
Since it is a matter of carrying a stretcher or a gate opening, I
don't see how that really has a material impact on the site plan.
I am not saying that the Fire Marshal's role and concern is not in
any way diminished here. I am just saying in terms of the
Commission's area of interest, how the site plan is properly laid
out has little impact.
12317
Mr. Morrow: So what we are saying what we heard at the review session that they
wanted to have some access for a truck to the rear of the building,
I imagine that has been changed.
Mr. Nagy: By the representation made here tonight as a result of the meeting
`, they had with the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Wagner: I have spoken with him. He is concerned about having access in
terms of paramedics. He is not looking for access for fire
fighting equipment.
Mr. Morrow: Just so we know that we are addressing their concern.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Osborne brought up a point that I was concerned about and that
is the mature trees on the property. In the past the developers
used to cut down all the trees and then name the streets after
them. It takes a long time for a tree to grow. What provisions do
we have now for marking those trees? Do we have a Forestry
Department or someone that would look at the site because we are
leaving it up to the architects to see what trees they want to
preserve and my concern would be that it would be a lot easier in
many cases to cut down the trees and plant new ones, which I am
opposed to. How can we address that concern?
Mr. Nagy: We ask them to mark on their site plan those trees that are outside
of the buildable area. The landscape plan shows four existing
trees, two on the east side and two on the west side of that
proposed parking lot that are outside the paved area that will be
retained.
Mr. Tent: The architect that was asked the question didn't know.
Mr. Nagy: They are shown on the landscape plan.
Mr. LaPine: John, seeing that this is a non-profit organization, does that mean
we don't collect any property tax on this?
Mr. Nagy: That would be guess but I am going to leave that to the City
Assessor. I will be happy to get a report back to you from the
Assessor's office. I am just not qualified.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed on the plans that there is an indication of an area
reserved for future building. What does that mean?
Mr. Green: One of the thoughts was to leave the area open if we wanted to put
in a one or two season porch, such as a recreation structure or a
gazebo. What we were basically denoting was we didn't want to
plant trees and take up that whole area. The intention isn't to
increase the capacity.
Mr. LaPine: That was all I was worried about. It is just going to be something
back there that will be used for the kids. It is not going to be a
utility shed?
6 Mr. Green: No.
12318
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the best thought out day care centers
I have seen. I think it is an ideal location. I think from the
pictures he has shown us here tonight, it is going to be an
attractive building and a very valuable asset to the City of
Livonia. They worked with the neighbors. They have a tremendous
`. greenbelt. I am very impressed. I am only sorry I am not a
current member of the UAW so my kids could go there. I am really
impressed and I would like to make an approving resolution.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
119-471-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-28 by Ford Motor Land Development
Corporation/UAW-Ford NEDTC requesting waiver use approval to construct a
new day care center to be located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road
between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 92-9-2-28 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 10-6-92, as revised, prepared by Rotwein &
Blake Associated, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan dated 9-28-92 prepared by DeMattia &
Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 9-4-92 prepared by Rotwein &
Blake Associated, Architects is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
4) That the down lighting area parking lot be added to the Site Plan
with no more than 20 foot poles, to be approved by the Planning
Department staff, prior to the minutes being approved.
5) That the Planning Department staff will make sure all the
requirements are met in connection with the Fire Marshal's request.
6) That the signage shall come back for Planning Commission approval.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03,
10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance V543.
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
Now
surrounding uses in the area.
12319
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the proposal but in relation
'fir• to the statement Mr. McCann said about it being an asset to the
City of Livonia, I don't see where it is any big asset to Livonia.
Number one, we are not going to collect any tax dollars on it.
Number two, it isn't going to be used primarily for children in
Livonia.
Mr. Wagner: One of the gentlemen from Ford Motor Land Development asked me to
state for the record that the facility will be paying taxes.
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 92-9-2-30
by Jonna Companies requesting waiver use approval to construct a Target
Store to be located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between I-275
and Haggerty 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.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they find nothing
inconsistent with the City ordinance. Also in our file is a letter
from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objection to this
`r. proposal. However, their approval is contingent upon further
review of an approved water main with on-site hydrants. Lastly, we
have received a letter from Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient
Parking. Proposed for the three uses are 1705 spaces. Deficient
153 spaces. 2. We need a floor plan to evaluate the proposed in
store restaurant. Please note that waiver use standards allow a
maximum of 30 seats for this type of restaurant. 3. We will
require a complete sign package in order to comment.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Jonna, please state name and address for the record.
Frank Jonna, Chestnut Hills, 1533 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: I am here
along with some representatives of the Target Company. I would
like to present the site plan and have Tom Bonneville of Target
address site plan and operation issues. We have an architect from
Target also, Jackie Cook-Haxsby with us today. (Mr. Jonna presented
the revised site plan). This site plan was resubmitted recently,
in which we made a number of adjustments to comply with some of the
concerns that was expressed previously. We have a greenbelt along
the freeway. We have a 60 foot setback. There will be a 30 foot
greenbelt along this entire area (He pointed it out on plan).
Although not indicated on this plan the PO zoned area is an area
that is under a conservation easement and will remain natural. The
``
12320
plan does satisfy approximately 16.5% of green space for the entire
site plan excluding this area. If this area were factored in, it
would be much higher. This is a phased development and what we
have before you tonight is strictly the site plan approval for the
Target Store. The parking provided within that phase line is 747
fir► cars, which I believe does satisfy the ordinance as it exists
today. The parking requirement is in excess of what Target
requires and feels is necessary for their operation. The access to
the site will be provided through three locations. The northerly
most location will be parallel to an existing opening to the retail
on the west side of Haggerty Road. This existing location is the
current access to the Horizon Health & Surgery Center. The site
lighting will be provided by means of shoebox type lighting that
will reflect the light parallel to the surface to be lit. It is
Target's preference to use a 40 foot pole to provide good light
distribution. In studying the issues of lighting, we have found
that the further the light source is from the eye, the less glare
there is and the more consistent the lighting is. Many times the
lower lighting creates hot spots in the parking lot and does not
allow for consistent lighting and puts the light source closer to
the people using the lot, not necessarily making a comfortable
situation. We have proposed on the landscape plan to use pine
trees along this entire edge and have increased the size of those
to provide the maximum amount of shielding to the shipping area.
We are in excess of handicap spaces.
Mr. Engebretson: How did you resolve the parking deficiency that was on the
original site plan?
Mr. Jonna: There was an additional site shown on the site plan submitted for
this building but we are not asking for site plan approval at this
time for this building. We feel the parking ratio of 1/125 is way
in excess of what would be necessary for the normal operation of
the store. We feel 1/150 would be more in line and provides a more
realistic parking count for what would be used. At this time the
plan shows the required amount and we will pursue that variance
with the ZBA.
Mr. Engebretson: You moved over into the area where the second building is?
Mr. Jonna: Yes. We don't have a firm plan for what that building is or the
size of that building at this time so I attempted to make sure the
ordinance was satisfied with respect to the Target Store.
Mr. Engebretson: You wouldn't consider looking to resolve this problem by making
the spaces narrower would you?
Mr. Jonna: No, although the original plan for Chestnut Hills did have a
reduction to nine feet, we have no intention of pursuing that here.
Mr. Tent: You have answered my question. Ten by 20 is what we require. That
concerned me. I thank you for doing that.
'r..
12321
Mr. McCann: With your last proposal, you will recall, we went around and around
about what was our best example and the back view. Did your
architect look at using the buildings and turning them so the
fronts would face each other so it would actually be the one
building would be facing south and the other one facing north just
so you don't have the back area of the buildings facing on the
'44m. highway?
Mr. Jonna: This building really doesn't have a back. Originally, we had
considered a strip center adjacent to this building. We have given
up that concept and have gone to two single users and I really
think when you have a chance to look at the elevations you will see
that this is a four-sided building. It doesn't really have a back
in terms of the treatment of the building. This configuration is
one that was very important to have the parking within a certain
radius of the front door and this site plan accomplished that. It
would be our intent for another user to treat the building the
exact same way and have a four-sided building. With a strip center
I can certainly understand the dumpsters, the backdoors, the
gutters, all the things that go with that use being a detriment to
the view of the freeway, but I think once you have had a chance to
look at that elevation, you will be happy. Our intent is the view
from the freeway does not represent the back of the building.
Mr. LaPine: Frank, I assume those little green spots we see throughout the
parking lot are going to be some plantings?
Mr. Jonna: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That is the concern I have. I just don't like asphalt with nothing
to break it up. So you will have some trees and other plantings
there?
Mr. Jonna: Yes we will. All the lot areas will be irrigated as well.
Mrs. Fandrei: What about your elevations.
Mr. Jonna: I am going to turn the mike over to Jackie Cook-Haxsby.
Mr. Engebretson: Before they begin, Mr. Nagy there was a deficiency reported in
the original site plan regarding the landscaping. How was that
taken care of?
Mr. Nagy: The parking in the front was deleted. The landscaping expanded in
that area as well as the greenbelt paralleling the expressway was
widened to 30 feet plus the landscaped islands within the parking
lot.
Jackie Cook-Haxsby: I am the Project Architect with Target out of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. To begin with I would like to just make a brief
statement. I know you received a package from Mr. Jonna and in
that there were some preliminary elevations. This is another
preliminary elevation. It is not final or engraved in concrete at
this point in time, although we are very close. There is some fine
\n.
12322
tuning of colors and we are in the process of doing that at this
point in time. As you know we face Haggerty Street. This will be
the main entrance of Target. (She went on to present the elevation
plans. )
'tar Mrs. Fandrei You mentioned you have screening four foot high above the roof?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: That is not correct. Four foot extended over what we normally
do. We normally have a two foot parapet so depending on where you
are at the roof you will have between a five and six foot deep
parapet, which will hide the roof top units.
Mrs. Fandrei: Where will it hide it from? Will it hide it from Haggerty Road,
which is the high point?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: The site is going to be built up somewhat over what it is now to
level it out and make it buildable. In addition to that, then you
will have the building, which by the time you get to the top of the
parapet you are at about 27 foot above ground level so yes it
should hide the view of the roof top units from Haggerty. We did
have our architect out of Minneapolis prepare a site line study and
it indicated there should not be a problem.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is one of my concerns that from all views, possibly even from
across the street at the high point of Victor's hotel that we not
see any type of roof top mechanics.
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: Are you talking about if you were to go in the Embassy Suites to
the top floor and look down?
Mrs. Fandrei: Exactly. In other words we don't want to see anything from any
point because the hotel wouldn't be something you wouldn't normally
see around Target.
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: With that I disagree. We have a number of Targets located
adjacent to hotels and taller buildings. We feel we have done an
honest attempt to hide the roof top unit or to disguise them from
any normal vantage point. If I were a guest at Embassy Suites and
I happened to glance out my window and see a roof top unit, I am
not going to be overly offended. These, however, are not the roof
top units that have all the guard rail treatment. They are a
contained unit that comes straight down through the roof. They are
a low profile unit. I believe they are around 4 to 4 1/2 foot
tall.
Mrs. Fandrei: They are going to be enclosed?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: They are in a box like type unit.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are we going to be seeing anything like satellite dishes for
reception for some of the equipment inside?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: We have a satellite dish but at this point in time it is
anticipated it will be mounted on the ground and screened.
12323
Mrs. Fandrei: Which will be on the expressway side?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: Yes but given the height of the trees and the density, I doubt
it will be visible.
itfty Mrs. Fandrei: Is there going to be any other presentation regarding security and
that type of thing or would you like someone else to answer that?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: Mr. Bonneville will answer that.
Mrs. Fandrei: I have been a patient at the medical building for quite a while and
there are some concerns in that area so I can wait for Mr.
Bonneville.
Mr. Morrow: You are talking about the wall that ran parallel to the expressway.
Is the wall pierced at all and whereabouts would it be?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: The wall has no openings other than one required exiting door
and a dock door that goes up into the receiving area.
Mr. Morrow: So we are not going to see a lot of piercing in the wall?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: No.
Mr. Alanskas: The entire wall facing the expressway, do you want to have that
whole back lit because you have a Target sign there?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: It will definitely be lit in the area. The Target sign itself
is an individual letter illimunated sign.
`r_. Mr. Alanskas: The two signs will not be lit but the ground is?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: At this time we do not have a definite lighting plan so it would
be difficult for me to answer that. That is one of the things
along with the finalizing of the elevations that is under review.
Mr. LaPine: With the height of the trees that are proposed along the expressway
area, that back wall, I assume, will not be visible from the
expressway?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: At the truck dock area, that would be a correct assumption.
When you get higher on the freeway where you are move level with
the building wall, you would be able to see some of the wall. The
trees are a little more spaced out in that area and a little
smaller.
Mr. LaPine: The reason I say that is I have an idea that what we want this
building to look like, we want it to look like that from either
side it looks like the front of the building. If you took the area
from the front of the building and it was at the end of the
building where your truck dock is, somebody coming by would think
there was also an entrance in the back from the expressway but if
you can't see it with all the trees, I would make it a point we
should do that.
12324
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: I don't think there would be any reason to do that and it would
be misleading to the public and someone that is not familiar with
the site could become easily confused. I am going to turn it over
to Mr. Tom Bonneville.
No . Tom Bonneville: I am with Target Stores. I have been there for years and years.
I haven't been back here for a long time but I know some of you
that have been on this committee. We have tried to do projects.
Actually this is our fourth try. I don't think we want to discuss
the other two. We are very excited to come back to Livonia. We
want to open a store in this location and we will be capable of
serving a part of Livonia, not all of it. We are five miles over
and five miles up from our other site so we are really ten miles on
the ground from our other store. We will be serving parts as well
of Northville, Novi and Farmington Hills. So we think that will
work very nicely. As you know we will be taxpayers too. I think
we are going to do a very nice presentation of this store and if
you as a group feel that lighting of the whole face of the store on
the back is a plus and you would like to make this the gateway of
Livonia, we could do that. We think the face of the back of the
building is nice. If you want that, we can do it. It is really a
place where we are not trying to concentrate parking or anything
like that. We will do whatever is necessary to do that kind of
thing.
I would like to tell you a little bit about Target Stores as well
and try to answer some of the left over questions. My title is
Senior Project Administrator. I am in the Real Estate Department
so I am pretty familiar with the project. By the way, I live in a
suburb of Medina, Minnesota that is just outside the edge of
Minneapolis. The Dayton Hudson Corporation is the owner of the
Target Stores. Target is the largest operating division of the
corporation. We now have in Dayton Hudson Corporation over 805
stores. Target stores itself has 493 stores that we are operating
as of this moment. We have not opened any stores in Michigan this
year. We are currently operating 32 stores in Michigan, which is
approaching our original announcement we made several years back.
Forty stores was the original intention. Now it looks like that is
not enough. We are going to have to come back and do a number
more. We are moving on for more stores in this state because it
has been very good to us. Minnesota and Michigan have been very
similar in store volumes, which are very high volumes. This is a
116,000 square foot store, which is a little larger than what we
used to build.
We as a coporation, as I think you all know by now, we try to be
good corporate citizens. This past year, 1991, as a coporation we
gave 27 million dollars to charities that are beneficial to family
services and to the arts and social programs in the markets where
we already do business. These are handled through grants that are
done where cities or organizations makes requests. Usually they
are non-profit type organizations, of course, that are for the
betterment of the communities and these are reviewed by our
Chairman and several other committee members down to people like
`Or
12325
myself. I am not on one of the committees but all the people in
the organization do these kind of things. We also are among the
largest corporate givers and employee givers to the United Way in
the United States among companies of our size. I think we are in
the 8.4 million category as a company and 4.7 million for employees
err in that range.
Target currently employs around 90,000 people. What we have been
doing with a new store like this, we would have approximately 225
to 250 full time plus part time employees. The full time
employees, if you want to get it down to 40 hours, would be about
160, so there are a lot of full time employees on hand. That is
understandable because we are operating something like three
shifts.
Just some other general information. Our dock now functions on our
new rules from 8:00 a.m. until 12:a.m. Those are our dock hours
today so having operations for trucks later than that is not a
large issue. Some other general things about the company I can
tell you about but I think that summarizes a general look at what
our company is all about. If you have some general questions about
this particular aspect about what we are trying to do, I am here to
try to answer questions and we have other people here to support us
with additional information as needed. I hope and pray that you
will give us your approval now because we are in a hurry. I don't
think we are impacting anybody negatively and we would like to open
as soon as we can in your City. I don't mean that we are in a
hurry so we are going to stumble and make mistakes. We want to do
what is right with us and with you.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Bonneville, the question I have is Mervyn's part of Hudsons?
Mr. Bonneville: Yes it is part of the Dayton Hudson Corporation. Their
headquarters are in California. There are a few Mervyn's in this
state. They kind of quantum jumped over a number of other states
to get to Michigan because our corporate research says Michigan is
a great state for our kind of retailing.
Mr. Tent: I was curious because you indicated Target and Hudsons. I had
heard in the past that Mervyn's was part of the Hudson
organization.
Mr. Bonneville: Mervyn's operates around 250 stores.
Mr. Tent: How would you interface that with Target?
Mr. Bonneville: Actually in dollar volume and size, Target is the largest.
Mervyn's is second largest in the corporation because it has so
many stores.
Mr. Tent: I am familiar with Target and I think it is a good store and it
certainly has a place here.
Mrs. Fandrei: What are the hours of this store?
`rr.
12326
Mr. Bonneville: Their hours are not consistent across the country. In this area
it should be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mrs. Fandrei: What kind of security are you planning on having around this whole
total property?
Mr. Bonneville: Are you talking about during hours or after hours or both?
Mrs. Fandrei: Both.
Mr. Bonneville: During hours we have security in the store that you don't always
see. I can't tell you all the different aspects of that but some
of it has to do with electronics, some of it is by surveillance and
some of it is electronic measures like checking bags that are going
through the doors. I don't know if you have noticed it but there
are some new machines set up in some of the Target stores that
makes you feel like you are walking through a little bit of a
narrowing and it can detect certain kinds of tags and things like
that. We also have plain clothes people that watch inside the
store that appear to be shoppers. We have people that are looking
through one-way glass. There are television cameras in some places
and in certain store locations there are television cameras that
are mounted on the building in an unobtrusive place that wouldn't
be noticed very easily that can survey all the parking lots. It is
more intense depending on the crime measurement in that area and we
have a staff to look into those things in those communities where
we are proposing a new store. It might be different on this side
of town versus that side of town. After hours, we have in addition
to those things that are no longer customer oriented because there
are no longer any customers except for those that leave their cars
`'` in the lot, we have a certain part of the lot, like for example for
our employees we have a lighted pathway so the employees or
customers who have to be there after hours, there is a designated
part of the lot and those people that are leaving the stores going
out to their cars have the lights lit out to a designated place.
We try to put the employees at a distant place in the lot to make
it more convenient for the customer. In addition to that, all the
lights around the perimeter of the store are turned on during all
the dark hours so that any doorway, including fire exit doorways,
are lit from above and their light spreads out around 60 feet
around those doorways even if they are not used.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are you going to have security? Is it going to be Target's
responsibility or Frank, would it be Jonna's responsibility for the
whole property including the medical building? Frank, what I am
concerned about is the Horizon Sports Medicine has young people
leaving there until 9:00 p.m. Teenagers that don't drive that have
to be picked up. They have had incidences across the street. They
just had a murder at Meijers. One of the reasons you are putting
this here is because of the expressway. That is also bringing in
an element that isn't desirable. People from the medical building
are concerned about security.
12327
Mr. Jonna: Targets are all on their own site. With respect to overall sight
security, at this point we don't have any plans to do that although
I am sure we would be willing to cooperate with Target if it was
determined there was a need for some security in addition to what
Target has described. At this point we don't have any specific
*"' plans for a patrol service or anything of that nature. Although I
am aware of the problem across the street, I am not aware of any
problems that have occurred at the surgery center.
Mrs. Fandrei: Not yet but with Target coming in and the later hours, I would just
like to suggest that you might want to think about that. Also, I
understand the lighting is poor at that end.
Mr. Jonna: Part of our concept is to re-light the entire site. Target has
some very specific lighting requirements and we would like to
spread those over the entire site.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#9-472-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 29, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-30 by Jonna Companies requesting
waiver use approval to construct a Target Store to be located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between I-275 and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-30 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That Phase 1 of Site Plan sheet SP1 dated 9-29-92, as revised,
prepared by JRJ Group, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall
be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan sheet P1-93 dated 9-25-92 prepared
by RSP Architects Ltd. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered
to.
3) That a fully developed landscape plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days of the
date of this resolution.
for the following reasons:
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.
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.
12328
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. Tent: In regard to item number 2, the Building Elevation Plan, it was my
understanding during the presentation that the elevation plan
wasn't complete. Can this be subject to?
Mr. Engebretson: I am glad you brought it up Ray. I would like to ask John to
give us some guidance on this because it is my recollection that
when a site plan has been deficient that we have not acted on it.
I don't have any problem with what is being proposed here but I am
troubled with the fact that here we are hurrying up like we always
do and we are not prepared. It bothers me so John help us out
here.
Mr. Nagy: Since they have expanded Phase 1 to incorporate all of the land
area necessary to support both the landscape component as well as
their off-street parking component, they have met those technical
requirements of the zoning ordinance so there are no deficiencies
in that regard.
Mr. Engebretson: The building elevations, by the petitioner's own testimony, are
not final and they don't have building materials, which are
customary for something of this magnitude.
Mr. Nagy: You have heard the presentation as well as I have. What I was
hearing is the material was decided on. It is a matter of color
variations, as to whether it was going to be orange or more in the
shades of brown. If it is simply a color problem, when the final
4.► selection is made before being issued any building permits, the
Planning Commission could reserve the right to make the final
determination. We can add that as a condition.
Mr. Tent: It wasn't colors. It was the elevation which wasn't complete. The
architect stated "we haven't fully decided about the elevations"
etc.
Mr. Nagy: Maybe I misunderstood. I was telling it the way I understood it
and in an attempt to answer Mr. Engebretson's question, the way I
heard it they were decided on the material, it was a matter of
color. If I am wrong, they are here to give the final answer.
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: It was primarily a matter of color. The materials indeed have
been selected. The building will be 95% brick. It is simply a
matter of choosing the manufacturer and selecting the colors. It
will be a very light brown, a darker brown and a cream color.
Mr. Tent: So what I see here now is what they are going to get?
Mrs. Cook-Haxsby: With a slight variation of color.
Mr. McCann: We have done it before where petitioners have come in and gave us
some ideas of what it is and we left it up to the staff to make
12329
sure they were appropriate. We are talking a little more darker
shade of brown instead of the orange. I think we have a good
concept although I do admit this is a little larger project than
some of the other ones. I really don't feel uncomfortable with
what she tells me as long as we have the staff review it.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't have a particular problem either as long as a
representative assures us that is the plan other than some possible
shadings of the colors.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision proposed to be located north
of Orangelawn between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 33.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposed plat that was tabled at our previous Regular
Meeting and we need a motion to have it taken from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-473-92 RESOLVED that, the Preliminary Plat approval for Orangelawn Woods
Subdivision proposed to be located north of Orangelawn between Stark and
Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, be taken from the
\to. table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Shane: This is a revised Preliminary Plat revised to the extent that it
now encompasses less area than the original. You may recall this
being Angeline Avenue, which is an existing street, being brought
forth in this fashion over to a cul-de-sac. There was also going
to be a street which was going to service this property up here but
that has now been eliminated from this plat and that is the reason
for the revision. Also, this proposes a future road outlet to this
point, which will service property to the north and to the east,
which also is vacant and needs to be serviced by access to that
property. The plat now proposes 12 lots. It is all zoned R-1 and
all lots meet or exceed the 60' x 120' lot size requirements. The
road itself is 60 feet in width. You have 120 foot of diameter for
the cul-de-sac, which is also required. This vacant area will be
platted pursuant to Item 3 on your agenda. With the proposed
rezoning of this particular lot 140, which if rezoned will be added
to this plat, there will be two additional lots at the end of that
cul-de-sac. It then would be a 14 lot subdivision when it is all
completed.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
12330
Bill Donnan: I am with Arpee/Donnan, the engineers for this project. I guess
Mr. Shane has gone over everything. I guess I would mention that
this plat will be serviced by public services. Sanitary sewer and
water is accessible. As far as the road construction and storm
drainage, we will be working with the City Engineering Department
%ft. to accomplish that to the City's standards. Are there any
questions?
Mr. Gniewek: Were there some questions as far as the DNR surveying the land?
Mr. Donnan: Mr. Soave has retained a wetland consultant who has reviewed the
project and has given an indication that it is not covered by a DNR
wetland.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe you will recall Mr. Nagy indicated that in the plat
approval process that the DNR gets a final shot at all of these
things so even though there may or may not be a wetland issue
there, we are assured that will be covered.
Mr. Gniewek: I just wanted to make a point of it and brought to the record
if there is any concern on the part of the residents in the area
that may be watching it on television.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand. That is why I enhanced the comment. Our
procedures normally do not include audience participation on these
pending items but I see Mr. Cwik is here. Do you have anything new
to add and if so, I want to make sure there are no objections to
opening that up. Hearing none, any brief comments Mr. Cwik?
Mr. Cwik: Just a very brief comment and one with my neighbor who couldn't
stay. We recommend approval as far as the plot plan goes. He has
definitely cooperated with our initial comments and Tony asked me
to read this and I agree with it that he recommends approval of the
proposed development being contingent upon confirmation by the
Michigan DNR with the results of the wetland survey conducted by
CMS Environmental Services dated September 22. Other than that, he
has done a good job working with us.
Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate all the involvement you have offered. Mr. Nagy,
just for the record, would you clarify that issue with the DNR
involvement?
Mr. Nagy: Because of the sanitary sewers being under Wayne County
jurisdiction, the plat will be reviewed by DNR. It is an automatic
policy so they will definitely have to review it because of the
sanitary sewer extensions and they will certainly flag it because
of the wetland designation. They will look at it and I want to
assure the neighborhood, the DNR will definitely have the final
say.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
12331
#9-474-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Preliminary Plat approval for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision
proposed to be located north of Orangelawn between Stark and Farmington
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission
fir. does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for
Orangelawn Woods Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the
Open Space requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for the
following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the development of subject property.
3) That no reporting City department has objected to the Preliminary
Plat.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 649th Regular Meeting held on September 15, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#9-475-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 649th Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on September 15, 1992 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Tent
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 92-9-8-14
by Philip Pisto requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for a
storefront architectural alteration of the existing building located at
33467 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This shopping center is located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road. It has two buildings on the property. The building in
question is the one facing Eight Mile Road. Their alternation is
12332
an architectural storefront. They are proposing to redo just the
front of the building. They are putting a 27 foot fake roof peak
in the middle of the building. Some of the cosmetic improvements
would be ceramic tile with a design on the peak area. They are
going to shingle the roof and this is all done on the existing
'1410' mansard roof. It will take the place of that.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Rocky Pisto, 6767 East Nashway, West Bloomfield: Our architect was supposed to be
with us tonight but was called on an emergency. We will do what we
can. (He presented samples of the texture of the roofing material
as well as a sample of the tile that would match the existing
brick).
Mr. LaPine: The west building that houses the store, that is not going to be
touched?
Mr. Pisto: No it is not.
Mr. LaPine: What is your vacancy?
Philip Pisto: At least 40% currently.
Mr. LaPine: You have lost considerable business since the new shopping center
to the west has opened?
Philip Pisto: Yes we lost a lot.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to put up a new sign?
Philip Pisto: That is for future plans.
Mr. LaPine: You lost Base Line Drugs. I knew this was going to happen when the
shopping center went in. It doesn't make sense to build new
shopping centers when you have old shopping centers that have been
there for a long time but that is here nor there. Is the Chinese
restaurant going to stay as far as you know?
Philip Pisto: They may stay but I lost a printer because he said he could not
afford to pay the taxes.
Mr. LaPine: The renovation of the building is probably going to help you but
you have to remember the shopping center next door is still pretty
empty. Are you doing anything to the parking lot?
Philip Pisto: Yes but I will wait until this is approved.
Mrs. Fandrei: It looks like the weeds haven't been pulled all summer.
Philip Pisto: If I spend a lot of money for this I have to have it properly
landscaped.
Mrs. Fandrei: It makes a difference in leasing if it all looks nice.
12333
Mr. Engebretson: John, what we are dealing with here tonight? Is it just the
facing of the building?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Just the building elevation plans.
Mr. Gniewek: Will there be a new sign package offered on this particular site
for the current shop owners that are there?
Rocky Pisto: There will be a proposed new individual letter illuminated sign for
all the new tenants. Once the new addition is approved here and
when the signs come down, new signs will be going up.
Mr. Gniewek: So those signs will probably meet the ordinance so we will not see
those signs? Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: You will see them. It is in a control zone. The K-Mart/Farmington
Center extends all the way to Eight Mile Road.
Mr. Morrow: In keeping with replacing the storefront, I think we should
revisit the approved landscape plan and do it in conjunction with
the new facade so it is consistent. I think we should address that
as part of the resolution that that be brought back up to standard.
Philip Pisto: I am going to do that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-476-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-9-8-14 by Philip Pisto requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal for a storefront architectural alteration of
the existing building located at 33467 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That all plans dated 9/1/92 by Architectural Design & Engineering,
entitled Architectural Solutions Pisto Retrofit, for the shopping
center located at 33467 Eight Mile Road are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to.
2) That the original landscape plan be brought back to its original
state by refurbishing where necessary or clearing out where
necessary.
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 92-9-8-15
by American Legion Post #32 requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a parking lot on the east side of Newburgh Road between Ann
Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32.
12334
Mr. Miller: This is a revised plan since the study meeting. They incorporated
the new parking lot to the whole site plan so you can get the whole
scheme of the parking lot. They are proposing to restripe the
whole parking lot. The handicap spaces are going to be located in
front of the building. They are putting an 18 foot wide berm in
the front and it will be 3 feet high. This area will be
landscaped. The landscaping now meets the requirement of 15% and
they are going to ask for a variance so they won't have to have the
wall between the residential and parking.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe all the points of concern have been addressed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-477-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
92-9-8-15 by American Legion Post #32 requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a parking lot on the east side of Newburgh Road
between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32,
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan, dated 9/29/92 by David C. Adams & Son
Registered Land Surveyors, Inc. on behalf of American Legion Post
#32 located at 9318 Newburgh Road is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan is hereby
approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained.
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 92-9-8-16
by Prime Communications requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.42b of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
install a satellite disc antenna on the roof of a building located on
the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington and Hubbard Roads
in Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This property has three buildings located on it. The petitioner's
unit is located in the rear of the building circled in yellow. He
is proposing to locate a satellite dish on the roof of his unit in
that building. It is approximately 15 feet from the east
elevation, 10 feet from the south or 40 feet from the north. It
would be non-pentrating mounts and would be a 10 foot diameter.
Mr. Engebretson: Based on the positioning of the dish on that roof, other than
from the dump area, where will that dish be noticeable?
Mr. Miller: I don't believe you will be able to see the satellite dish.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
12335
#9-478-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
92-9-8-16 by Prime Communications requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.42b of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to install a satellite disc antenna on the roof of a building
located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington and
'04m. Hubbard Roads in Section 27, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan dated 9/16/92 by Prime Communications to install
a satellite antenna on the roof of the building located at 32457
Schoolcraft is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
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.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by William L. Roskelly of Basney & Smith, Inc. on behalf of
Western Golf Estates Subdivision requesting a new subdivision entrance
marker.
Mr. Miller: The entrance marker will be located at the Inkster/Oakley Avenue
entrance to Western Golf Estastes. It will be 18 square feet total
area. It will be set back 10 feet from the right-of-way and it
will be 5 feet high so it meets all of the requirements of the sign
ordinance.
`► Mr. Engebretson: Will it be illuminated?
Mr. Roskelly: We are toying with the idea and if it is the Planning Commission's
desire and request, we are thinking of a ground light that would
flood the sign but I am of two minds. We have street lights in the
area and I don't think it will be necessary.
Mr. Engebretson: It was just a matter of interest and I had no particular position
on it.
Mr. Roskelly: I would add that the specific sign, now that I hopefully will get
this one approved, will be the sign I will be placing on three or
four other subdivisions as well.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-479-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign
Permit Application by William L. Roskelly of Basney & Smith, Inc. on
behalf of Western Golf Estates Subdivision requesting a new subdivision
entrance marker, subject to the following condition:
1) That the sign plan dated 9/3/92 submitted by William L. Roskelly for an
entranceway sign for the Inkster Road-Oakley Avenue entrance to the
Western Golf Estates Subdivision, being that it meets all requirements
of Zoning Ordinance #543, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
12336
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 George Harb for the installation of a Satellite Disc Antenna on
'41011. property located at 19701 Ashley Court in Section 5.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the east side of Newburgh Road in the Whispering
Hills Subdivision. He was just recently denied a satellite dish.
He is proposing now to relocate a dish and downsize it. It will be
located about 15 feet from his house whereas the old one was
attached to the corner of his house. He downsized it from 10 feet
to 8 feet and it is approximately 42 feet from the north lot line.
Mr. Nagy: We have received on this date a letter from the Whispering Hills
Subdivision Association referencing new permit application for a
satellite dish by Mr. George Harb for property located at 19701
Ashley Court. I would be happy to read it in its entirety but the
substance of it is the association is opposed. They took a survey
of their full membership, 21 lot owners and 19 are opposed.
Mr. Engebretson: Which is consistent with their deed restrictions.
Mr. Nagy: That is the principal reason they cite for it.
Mr. Engebretson: Is Mr. Harb here?
Gus Semaan: Mr. Harb was here earlier this evening but said he didn't feel well
and had to go home. He asked me to tell you his stand on this.
What he told me was he can't afford to make any more changes and
''44ar invest any more money in this and he is going to take it up with
the company. He would prefer that the original denial stay for the
record so when he goes and takes legal action, it will show it was
turned down because he was not educated by the installer.
Mr. Engebretson: Help me out Mr. Nagy, would it be procedurally correct then to
table this until we get a letter from the petitioner asking to
withdraw this petition.
Mr. Nagy: The matter of the first application is now public record. It has
been dealt with both by the Planning Commission and the City
Council and it was denied and the record will show that. This is a
new application and it is to be dealt with and either the
Commission can deny it of, if it is in fact the petitioner's
request to have it withdrawn, he should submit that in writing and
the Commission will deal with that by resolution so it will show
for the public record the disposition of the matter so there will
be a record of that withdrawal and the Commission's action with
respect to it as well.
Mr. Engebretson: Gus, is it your understanding if Mr. Harb was here he would ask
for this matter to be withdrawn?
Mr. Semaan: Specifically.
12337
Mr. Engebretson: Since he is not here, I assume you don't have a power of
attorney, we can't act on that request this evening.
Mr. McCann: Gus, do you want it withdrawn or do you want it denied for the same
reasons that the last one was denied for?
Nrrr
Mr. Semaan: If he can't have it where he had, he can't afford to make any
changes. Basically, he would have to spend more money either way
whether he left it in the ground or if he had an umbrella or
whatever he chooses to do. If he can't have it where he had it
before, then he wishes not to have it.
Mr. Gniewek: I would think denying this petition would not cause any problem as
far as the petitioner is concerned because all we are doing is
enforcing the original denial based on the same reason that it is
not aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area plus the fact
that it is opposed by the homeowners association. I think it would
strengthen his position rather than weaken it. If we table it, it
would do nothing. I would just as soon deny this.
Mr. Tent: I agree. That was my comment. These people from the civic
association are here. Why bring everyone back again. I think our
action today by denying it would conclude it and it would be all
over with and he could take whatever action is required.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to say I was speaking from a procedural point of
view just trying to make sure we were doing it correctly. I have
no problem with denying this second petition. I think we have that
authority to deal with it, to approve it or deny it, and since he
hasn't submitted an official request to do that, I guess I will let
*040r it go however it goes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-480-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit
Application by George Harb for the installation of a Satellite Disc
Antenna on property located at 19701 Ashley Court in Section 5 for the
following reasons:
1) That due to its size and location, this disc antenna would be
detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the surrounding
neighborhood in addition to people traveling the abutting
thoroughfare by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize
the property values in the area as set forth in the comprehensive
plan of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application
by Knights of Columbus for the installation of a Satellite Disc Antenna
on property located at 39100 Schoolcraft Road in Section 19.
12338
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is proposing to put a 10 foot diameter dish in the
back of their assembly hall in a grassy area back there. One of
the reasons they have asked for the dish is that this area happens
to be in the industrial corridor of the City and the cable lines
will not be seen in the immediate future in this area.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe this petitioner supplied acknowledgement from his two
commercial neighbors that they had no objection.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-481-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit
Application by Knights of Columbus for the installation of a Satellite
Disc Antenna on property located at 39100 Schoolcraft Road in Section
19, subject to the following condition:
1) That the Site Plan and Specifications submitted by Advanced
Satellite for a Satellite Disc Antenna at 39100 Schoolcraft Road
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the applicant has shown hardship due to the fact that cable
television hookup will not be realistically available to this area
due to its location in the outer edge of, what is known as, the
industrial corridor of the City.
2) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will
have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties.
10111.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 650th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on September 29, 1992 was adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
�-� /./
,des C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: 4" ' iiE. %
Jack1Engebret .on, Chairman
jg