HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-02-25 11906
MINUTES OF THE 638th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 25, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 638th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Conrad Gniewek
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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
'tor have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: The Mayor has requested that we delay Item #1 to follow Item #5
in that he had several points he wanted to share with us this
evening and his schedule just didn't allow him to be here at this
particular time, so without objection I will move Item #1 to become
Item #6. Hearing none, I will ask the Secretary to read item No.
2.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda will be Petition
92-1-1-1 by T. Rogvoy Assoc. Inc. for Chili's of Michigan requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of
Schoolcraft Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward and give us your name and
address and tell us your reason for making this request.
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent Chili's Corporation. I think
that all the members of the Planning Commission, as well as myself,
11907
are probably familiar with Chili's. They have a location over at
Eight Mile and Haggerty Road. It is a major food operation and
restaurant. They operate over 250 restaurants under the Chili's
name in 39 states. They are relatively new. Probably in the last
ten years they have come into the State of Michigan. It is a
family type of restaurant. They do have liquor so there is a need
'taw for a Class C license but it is similar to the other two
restaurants on the corner. They are also family type restaurants,
the Oliver Garden Restaurant and Chi Chi's. We also have some
gentlemen here from Chili's so if there are some questions that I
can' t answer, they will be happy to do so. Let me tell you a
little bit about the site. I think you probably know as much about
it as I do, having been through the wars over there. This site was
originally developed with the two restaurants, first the Chi Chi's
and then Kellys, where the Olive Garden is now operating. Then it
expanded to the east with the OS operation and finally into the
hotel that is just to the east of the Olive Garden. I think that
the rationale that is here before you is that I think we have all
seen in the last few years what has happened to office developments
and the number of vacancies throughout the major Metropolitan
areas. The undeveloped property fronts Middlebelt Road and has
been developed for commercial, not only on the same side of the
street but on the other side, with the exception of some of the
office buildings there. Obviously with the expressway generating a
tremendous amount of traffic, Chili's is interested in this
location and feels it is a good location for them and obviously has
talked the owner of the property into giving them an option to see
if they can get the type of approvals that they need to operate
that restaurant. To get you a little more involved in some of the
facts of their operation, I have indicated that it is a family
restaurant. They are open seven days a week. They are open
in the morning at 11:00 and Friday and Saturday they are open until
12:00. Every other night of the week they are open until 11:00.
They do provide jobs for 120 people, most of them are obviously the
waiters and the people that work in the kitchens and there are some
supervisory jobs amongst the 120. The investment that they have to
put into this type of development, not only in the building and the
land and the landscaping that goes into it, generates approximately
an $1,800,000 to $2,000,000 investment in this type of an
operation. There is no entertainment in the bar. It is strictly
like the Olive Garden or Chi Chi's. Just a holding area for
people. There are no tables available to hold them in the bar. It
will only seat about 15 people so there is no room for a dance
floor or any entertainment of that nature. The people that have
been to Chili's, recognize that it is in a medium price range and
the average price per dinner is $7.80. It is not the top of the
line but it is a family type of restaurant and I think in these
economic times that we have, it is a restaurant that is very
attractive to people that have families and experience somewhat
difficult times. I think that it gives you a little bit of
background about Chili's operation. You do know the history of
this location much better than I do and we are here to answer any
questions.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, who owns the property presently?
11908
Mr. Tangora: I don't know whether it is in a corporation. I only know the
individual. It is Mr. Guastello.
Mr. Tent: He is the same person that owns the Quality Inn Hotel?
Mr. Tangora: He is the principal owner.
Sow
Mr. Tent: Does the petitioner have an option pending zoning?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Tent: I am quite familiar with Chili's and I think it is a fine
restaurant but I have some reservations about this location. Will
there be on-site parking or will you have to borrow parking spaces
from some of the other places because if my memory is right they
have had some problems with parking and they had to share parking
between Chi Chi's and the hotel. Can you tell me how you propose
to handle this?
Mr. Tangora: I understand that is a fact that the site doesn't accommodate all of
the parking that is necessary and I think they have to borrow from
the office site. The office site is overdeveloped as far as
parking is concerned. They have more parking spaces than what they
need and also more than what Chili's want to have and have entered
into an agreement to use. Most of the parking sites that would be
on the office facility would be used by employees. I recognize
there is a problem and I also recognize that it has been done in
places and I think you pointed out that Chi Chi's was one of them.
Mr. Tent: That did concern me because there is quite a traffic problem there
and parking is a concern so you have answered my question.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Tangora, you indicated that Chili's would be serving liquor at
this location. Could Chili's exist without a liquor license?
Mr. Tangora: They never have. In all their other 250 plus locations, they have
a liquor license.
Mr. Gniewek: You do realize there are three within a short distance of that
area?
Mr. Tangora: Yes I do.
Mr. Gniewek: You are saying that they could not operate without it?
Mr. Tangora: It is part of their operation. It is just like Chi Chi's and the
Olive Garden. It is an accommodation to the type of clientele they
attract there. People like to have a cocktail or wine when they
are dining.
Mr. Gniewek: Do they have a license in escrow that they could utilize at this
location or would they have to apply for a new one?
Mr. Tangora: They would have to apply for a new one.
`rr.
11909
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tangora, you have been through this many times on this
property and I believe that this commission put that OS as a buffer
between the subdivision and the restaurants and it is going to be
hard to go back on our word from making that an OS to a C-2. I, as
one commissioner, gave my pledge to the homeowners in that
Slimy subdivision that we were going to leave that OS. It is going to be
difficult for members on this board that were there 4 or 5 years
ago to change that. Secondly, I frequent Chili's in Dearborn and
they have one heck of a good noon traffic and if that is parking
for those office buildings from 9:00 to 5:30, I think the parking
is going to be one big problem at noon because the employees are
there and they will have all these customers at Chili's because
they serve good food. That is just one commissioner's opinion.
Mr. McCann: Have you gone and talked with the neighbors because we have been
involved with these neighbors for a long time and I would
personally have a problem with having a restaurant in my backyard.
I see three neighbors it is actually going to touch but I think it
is going to affect more of them. Have you gotten their responses?
Mr. Tangora: Personally I have not but I think one of the gentlemen from Chili's
has talked to three neighbors who immediately adjoin the property.
I wasn't privy to that conversation but they indicated they were
not interested in talking any further about this. I am not really
sure. We are always open to sit down with the neighbors and try to
see if we could lessen any impact they would have. I am well aware
there are restaurants and we have them in the City that back up to
residential and exist very nicely without a problem. I know the
Chili's organization is ready, willing and able to do that and even
do some things with the neighbors that adjoin the property that
would hopefully try to accomodate some of their fears.
Now
Mr. LaPine: I think the question here Mr. Tangora is the fact you are asking
for a C-2 classification, which is a more intense classification
than the OS. It is my opinion, and shared by most members of the
board, that we have an awful intense area there now. That corner,
Schoolcraft back to where the medical building is, that area where
Chili's wants to go, the office buildings, the Italian restaurant,
is so cluttered today it is just impossible. Quite frankly, if I
had been sitting on this board I wouldn't have voted for a couple
of those items that went in there. I think you have to convince
us C-2 is better for the City than OS. In my opinion it isn't.
You mention the OS, that there is not a market out there for more
office. I agree with you. Mr. Guastello has probably two
buildings back there that are probably 90% empty. He has plans to
build two more additional buildings to the east of his property,
which he hasn't built because he can't rent them. This land may
sit there for a while before he is ever going to develop it as OS
but I think we would be doing a disservice to the City to increase
the density in that particular area and put another restaurant in
there. I think the area is more than covered with restaurants.
Nothing against Chili's. Everything I have ever heard about
11910
Chili's is great. Maybe there is another location in Livonia where
they could go but this here location is bad unless you can convince
me the C-2 is better for the City than the OS.
Mr. Kluver: Just a comment. Essentially it is a more intense use but I guess
there is some logistical information that is available. Our
Planning Staff constantly updates this type of data. We did make a
Restaurant Study in 1990. I think numbers come in to play and I
look at the petitioner and I certainly welcome the fact that they
want to invest in Livonia; however, in 1990 we had 217 eating
establishments in this City. That is 36 square miles. I am going
to take the inside of the square, which would go from Inkster to
Middlebelt, Middlebelt to Five Mile and then back to Inkster. At
that time you had nine establishments already there. I think there
are logistics that are available that support the fact of the
intense use by going from OS to C-2.
Mr. Tangora: I appreciate the comments. I think there is complete agreement
that we are dealing with a quality operator here and they will
certainly build a facility that they and the City would be proud
of. They do keep their properties in immaculate shape. They are
landscaped well and are maintained and there is usually never a
problem with them. Whether there is a need for another restaurant
or not? They are successful every place they go. They are in the
type of market that continues to expand. More people are eating
out and they are looking for facilities and some type of a
different eating situation that Chili's offers them.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, have we received any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
'411111110' they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison that they have no objection
to this rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Jim Paison, 29321 Perth: That is the first lot that backs up to Middlebelt.
Middlebelt is overcrowded now. They back up sometimes back to my
house for Schoolcraft. We don't need a bar back there and that is
pretty much what it is. It has a limited amount of food. It is
mostly a bar and it has younger crowds there. We don't need them
in our backyard. It is too crowded there now. You have let too
much stuff be built in there. We were here at the last meeting and
he had said he gave this property to his partner because his
partner didn't want to do the back end. Now all of a sudden he has
it again. I just think the guy plays games with the property and
he has more than met his needs. He can't fill what he has now. He
doesn't need anything else there.
Mr. Engebretson: You are aware sir that the petitioner could come in and build one
more office building there?
11911
Mr. Paison: Yes, he can build an office there but he can't build a building
that is going to be open until midnight with people coming out
drunk and with houses backing up to it.
John Fleischer, 29313 Perth: My property Is Lot 32. Part of my concern is that 3
1/2 years ago when I purchased the home I am living in now, I was
concerned with the vacant lot and I did check the zoning and one of
the things that made me want to live in this community is the fact
I would not have a restaurant in my backyard. I am aware of part
of the problems that could be caused from having a restaurant in
your backyard. I currently feel we have enought restaurants. We
have Chi Chi's, Olive Garden and Bob Evans. I believe there is
currently too much traffic in that area. I am concerned about
disturbances caused due to that traffic and the fact you won't have
privacy in your backyard. I don't believe we would have any if you
had constant traffic coming in and out of the restaurant. I am
also concerned with the trash. You would have dumpsters there with
the smell and odor that you would be aware of in your backyard. I
feel that would definitely make me reconsider wanting to stay in my
current home. I don't feel the quality of having a backyard and
being able to do things like having barbecues and picnics, etc.
would be in my best interest to stay there. I also feel the
property value would be decreased if this restaurant were to go in
place. If I wanted to sell it, personally I wouldn't want to buy
it if the backyard faced a restaurant. One of the other concerns I
have currently there is just a wooden fence in my backyard. I am
definitely not for this rezoning but if it were to happen, then I
would want a brick fence placed along my property similar to the
other residents. Currently I know of Chili's reputation and where
I work in Dearborn there is a Chili's that is real close to where I
work and I do know they get a younger crowd, especially late at
night after working hours so I would have a concern with possible
rowdy activities. That is all I have to say.
Mary Toovalian, 29305 Perth: I am Lot 31, which is the shortest yard. As the
Mayor pointed out, we were promised there would never be a
restaurant there after Mike Kellys was put up because we had a big
argument about that one. That restaurant is going to be right in
my backyard. I will never have privacy. I will never have quiet.
My house will be lit up all night. Don't tell me there is no
fighting in the parking lot. There is fighting in Chi Chi's
parking lot many times. The police cars are out there. There are
all kinds of activities going on back there. I have been a
resident in Livonia for 15 years, my parents for 37 years. I don't
think this is fair. You have to look out for us. You have chopped
up this property piece by piece every three years whenever Mr.
Guastello decides what he wants to put in there. This is not the
first restaurant that has approached me. I have had three or four
calls in the last three years from many different resturants and I
told them my opinion. I know something has to go back there but it
should be an office. You are talking about a 12-hour operation
from 11:00 in the morning until midnight. Would you have that in
your backyard? How could you ever use your back yard. You will
have no privacy. You could never entertain. You couldn't even sit
11912
out there. As it is the smell from Chi Chi's on a warm day is
nauseous. I have to close my doorwall and put the air conditioner
on because of the smell, which I don't like to do all the time but
I have to. I complained about this years ago and they told me it
was my imagination. If you tell me they are building an office, I
Now. against
no problem with that but another restaurant backing up right
against our property. I looked at the Chili's. They have lights
all around the building. Maybe 40 or 50 lights attached to the
building not counting what they are going to put in the parking
lot. Would you want that in your backyard? Would you want to live
like that where you would be embarrassed to have anyone come and
have a barbecue in your backyard? It is a young people's
restaurant and they don't care when they are drunk. They don't
care what they do. Would you want that in your yard? With an
office, at least they are in 9:00 to 5:00. I have no objections to
that, but a restaurant. That would be three in a row. One across
the street, the French Epi next to them, a party store and now you
are building a service center. Do you know how horrendous that
traffic is out there? I have had two major accidents out there. I
don't even go out that way 90% of the time. I go through the
subdivision, that is how frightened I am and you are going to put a
restaurant in there? The traffic is too heavy. You don't live
there. You don't hear the noise at night, what is going on in
those parking lots with the motel and restaurants. We do. If you
lived there, you would know.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-1-1-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
olur
#2-219-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 92-1-1-1 by T. Rogvoy Assoc. Inc. for Chili's of
Michigan requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road, north of Schoolcraft Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 24 from OS to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-1-1-1 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan designation of Office for this subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will not maintain the buffer
zone concept whereby a more restrictive zoning district is placed
between a more intensively used, less restrictive district and
residential development so as to lessen any negative external
effects which tend to erode the peace, tranquility and enjoyment of
the residential area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning to a less restrictive zoning
classification will provide for development which will increase
traffic congestion in the area.
4) That there has been no demonstration of the need for more of the
type of uses which are attracted by the proposed zoning district to
serve the surrounding neighborhoods in the area.
11913
5) That the placement of the existing office uses on adjacent
properties were predicated on the notion that the extension of
additional office uses onto the subject property would complete a
very logical development plan for the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Tent: I would like to add a sixth item, which is very important, which we
haven't covered. We covered this during the beginning of the
meeting, that is the insufficient parking on site and the shared
parking with existing property would present a serious problem.
Mr. Morrow: We are dealing with a zoning issue and I think that last point Mr.
Tent made concerns site plan. We are not talking about a
restaurant here tonight. We are talking about zoning and in C-2 a
number of classifications can go in there. Should we go with
Chili's, who is with us tonight because they have shared with us
what they want to do on that property, that does not mean the C-2
could not change. I will support the motion if we drop the last
item and I will tell you why. We have worked with the property
owner in the past, when I believe it was an R-7, and we went to the
office service. We talked to the neighbors, as a couple of the
people have indicated tonight, and I am not sure we made a promise.
I am not sure that is within our power to make a promise as it
relates to zoning but I supported the office zoning because I have
been a strong believer in a buffer between commercial and
residential and I could not go back on my committment as a planning
commissioner to go from office service to a more intense use,
particularly if the restaurant would prevail at a subsequent public
`. hearing. It is for those reasons that I will favor the denial of
this zoning request.
Mr. Tent: If I might address Mr. Morrow's remarks about item number 6. The
reason I put that in is because I share his feelings about this. I
certainly share the feelings of the neighbors because what they say
is totally true. Mary, Jim and John, I appreciate the fact that
you have come to Livonia because it is a good city and has good
planning. We certainly don't want to go back on our word. The
reason I put this language in about the parking at this particular
time is for the wisdom of Council because this has to go before
them. Let them know in the past what has happened with this
particular parcel. There is no parking. I will be more than happy
to withdraw item number 6.
Mr. Morrow: I don't think it is within our prerogative to condition zoning
prior to what we know is going to be the use in there.
Mr. Engebretson: I recommend, that knowing Mr. Morrow is a purist and he generally
has the right track on these issues, I would defer to his wisdom
and suggest that Mr. Tent agree that we omit that last item.
Mr. Tent: It's fine with me.
11914
Mrs. Fandrei: I feel we are commissioned to consider good planning. That is why
we are here. I feel we have a commitment to this neighborhood to
not overburden the area with four restaurants. We also have a
commitment to the community. I do not feel a fourth restaurant
would be good planning. It is as simple as that. It would not be
a service to the community.
Mr. Gniewek: I would like to go along with Mr. Morrow's comment as far as we are
voting on zoning in this particular instance. We haven't seen a
site plan. We don't know if parking would be a problem. There
might be sufficient parking available on that particular site. I
would agree with Mrs. Fandrei and my other colleagues. We have a
buffer zone there. We have a zone that has been created with a lot
of thought to buffer the residents from what is presently existing
along that area there. We not only have three restaurants there,
we have the party store, as the lady indicated. We have a bakery
that has sit-down food in it. We have Mitch Housey's, which is
another restaurant. We have across the street at the racetrack
another restaurant. We don't need another restaurant in that area.
Mr. McCann: I would like to point out to Mary, whose comments to the board this
evening, seem to indicate that we, as commissioners, had something
to do with allowing this to be brought before the City. Actually,
we sit up here and we have our first chance to respond to anything
that is brought before us tonight just as you do. We had no
involvement in bringing this up. We may feel as outraged as you do
about the idea of putting a restaurant there. This is our first
opportunity to discuss it with the public and to make our feelings
known. I do agree with my fellow commissioners. I think it would
be poor planning to go to commercial zoned property next to the
residential area we have there when we do have sufficient
commercial property on the corner. This is no way one of our
ideas. It is just when we take an item like this, we have our
oppportunity tonight like you do to express our opinion and vote on
it.
Mr. Engebretson: Because I am sensing considerable opposition to this proposal, I
am going to take this oportunity to agree with Mr. Tangora that
Chili's is indeed a quality operation. It is a restaurant that I
go to on a fairy regular basis in Farmington Hills and I enjoy it.
They have good food, good service and it is well managed and
controlled and it is a good operation and I want to encourage
Chili's to come into Livonia. However, this is not, in my opinion,
the right location. It is presently zoned as OS. The proposed
zoning is C-2, which is two clicks up and in addition to that this
type of use requires a waiver of use, which is even a third level
more intense than what has been planned. Earlier we heard Mr.
Vyhnalek and Mr. Morrow refer to past commitments made to the
residents in that neighborhood where existing zoning is intended to
be buffered and I take those kind of comments very seriously. I
don't think that there is any way that we can break faith with the
community on that kind of issue and I am sorry that it has reached
this point without that kind of message being brought to you loud
and clear. I realize everyone has the right to petition for a
11915
change. That is the American way. On the other hand, if you go out and
spend some time at that location, to not be understanding of the
residents' predicament that they would face with this intensity would be
impossible to understand. I do hope that Chili's would find a location.
I definitely obviously will be planning to support this denying
resolution.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-1-2-1
by Perry Drug Store Inc. requesting waiver use approval to transfer an
existing SDM license to a new location within the shopping center
located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Bakewell 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 waiver use proposal. Also in our
file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no
deficiencies or problems were found, therefore, they have no
objections to the proposal. We have also received a letter from
the Traffic Bureau stating Perry Drug Store is well established at
the location and they find nothing in the move to the new location
that would change the existing approval granted by the department
in the past. We also have in our file a letter received from the
Division of Fire stating they have no objections. Lastly, we have
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition.
"%. Mr. Engebretson: This afternoon Mr. Polsinelli called me and told me due to some
personnel shifts within the Schostak organization, they were not
going to be able to be present tonight but I am wondering if that
has changed and if there is anyone here representing the
petitioner?
William Beech of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 150 W. Jefferson, Detroit: I
am here tonight representing Perry Drug Store and I am with Ted
Stuwicki, District Manager of Perrys for this area and if you have
any operational questions, Ted will be more than happy to answer
those for you. We are here requesting a waiver of use so Perry
Drug Store can move its location where it currently is to the
corner. To refresh your memory this shopping center was built in
the mid 1970s. Perrys was one of the original tenants and has had
an SDM license at that location ever since the store opened. They
now have the opportunity to move to a larger facility with a better
visibility frontage to the street and they would like to take
advantage of that opportunity and by doing so would like to move
the SDM license down to the corner location. (Mr. Beech showed
photos of the new store. ) We are here to answer any questions.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Beech, are you proposing any additional signage on the
building?
`rrr.
11916
Mr. Beech: l I believe they will be proposing signage. I think they have talked
to John originally and had signs on both sides. They have
regrouped. Maybe John can answer that question.
Mr. Nagy: By our ordinance they are allowed 80 square feet of wall sign and
they are allowed only one wall sign. What they are desirous of
having, because of the corner location, on the east where they face
New the off-street parking lot, as well as the fact that they side on
Seven Mile Road, they propose two wall signs, each 80 square feet.
So the result of that, on the basis of two wall signs as well as
total square footage of both wall signs, would be double what is
allowed and would be in violation of the zoning ordinance so
therefore they sought an appeal for that second wall sign to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. That meeting was scheduled, I believe,
for February 11. Due to the fact that at that meeting there was
not a full board present and the board gives the petitioner the
option to remove the item from the agenda until such time as there
is a full board, the item was removed from the February 11 agenda
and rescheduled for March 3.
Mr. Tent: This is a control zone so it will also have to go before Council?
Mr. Nagy: If they are successful, before a wall sign can go up, they will
have to come back both to the Planning Commission for a review,
pursuant to the control ordinance, as well as they will have to
have the City Council concur.
Mr. Tent: So at this point we have no sign being proposed?
Mr. Nagy: That is right. What is before you is simply whether or not the
matter of the license here should be allowed at the new location.
gala. Mr. McCann: Are you going to be increasing the size of the store?
Ted Stuwicki: Yes we are. I believe we are increasing it by approximately 1500
to 2000 square feet.
Mr. McCann: Are you going to have a separate area for the liquor and the beer?
Mr. Stuwicki: We will have coolers for the beer and a separate section for the
wine.
Mr. Morrow: I believe the gentleman said Perrys has been there with a beer and
wine license since 1972?
Mr. Engebretson: He said the center was constructed in the mid 70's. I don't know
if he specifically gave us that information relative to Perrys.
Mr. Stuwicki: I said mid 70's.
Mr. Morrow: Have you had a beer and wine license since the inception of the
store?
Mr. Stuwicki: That is correct.
11917
Mr. Morrow: I think we are in conflict with the ordinance as it relates to
Primo's Pizza and Livonia Italian Bakery. K-Mart, I believe has
given up that particular sale. I guess I would like a little
history on the site. How do you relate to Primo's? Were you there
before Primo's?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they were.
Mr. Morrow: So you are the longest standing distributor of beer and wine in
that area and you just want to move it a little bit further to the
south?
Mr. Stuwicki: That is correct.
Mr. Gniewek: Will this be a 24-hour operation once it moves?
Mr. Stuwicki: There are no plans at the present time to make it a 24-hour
operation.
Mr. Gniewek: You have one 24-hour operation presently in Livonia at Six Mile and
Newburgh?
Mr. Stuwicki: Yes.
Mr. Gniewek: This would not become 24 hours?
Mr. Stuwicki: There are no plans at the present time for it to be a 24-hour
operation.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am looking at your lease summary. It looks like your original
date was April of 1978. Would that be about right?
Mr. Stuwicki: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: On Exhibit B of that packet we received, in the western part of the
building is the restricted areas and potential future expansion.
Is that inside the building or the exterior area?
Mr. Stuwicki: I don't think that applies to Perry Drug Stores. That looks like
an expansion between the K-Mart building and the rest of the
center. That may be future expansion that Schostak has in mind but
not Perrys.
Mr. LaPine: To the gentleman from Perrys, in the future are you going to try to
get a packaged liquor license?
Mr. Stuwicki: Of course, we would like to. I can't say at this point in time
whether we have plans or not. There is currently an SDD
application that has been filed, which is now on hold because
Livonia does not have any more SDD licenses to provide to
businesses like Perrys. We are now in the process of reviewing it
to see if it is worth the effort to go out and secure an SDD
license to transfer to this location and if, in fact, we were to
transfer it to this location whether or not it meets all the
11918
requirements of not only the City of Livonia but the LCC of the
State of Michigan. The decision hasn't been made whether or not to
pursue it at this point in time.
Mr. LaPine: Assuming you weren't granted the privilege of moving the license
to your new location on the corner, what would happen then? Would
you stay where you are at? It is kind of strange that you come in
and ask now to have the license transferred when they have already
started to renovate the building you are going to move into like
there was no problem, it was going to go through.
Mr. Stuwicki: It is a situation where the location where we are moving to is a
better location. It will give us much more visibility and a larger
area. I believe whether we would get the transfer or not we would
still move.
Mike Fandrei, 19578 Fitzgerald: I would like to thank Perry Corporation. Some of
the commissioners might remember a few years ago the struggle we
had with a liquor license that was going to be sold on the open
shelf. After we fought that battle, I went down to the Perrys at
Six Mile and Newburgh and they had changed their liquor and put it
on the shelf where anybody could get at it. I called Flint and
mentioned to them that if they wanted another liquor license in
Livonia and they were going to sell it on the open shelf, they
would have a difficult time. Lo and behold, two months later their
liquor went behind the counter again so I would like to thank
Perrys for cooperating with the City.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
fir.
#2-220-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 92-1-2-1 by Perry Drug Store Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to transfer an existing SDM license to a new location
within the shopping center located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile
and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 92-1-2-1 be approved subject to the waiving of the 500 foot
separation requirement set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance by the City Council for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
11919
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
r'�• Mr. Morrow: I am not normally one to support the motion where we are waiving
one of the requirements of our ordinance, which is the 500 foot
separation between other users, but as we established earlier, they
are pretty much grandfathered into that area and they are just
changing their location. On that basis I feel comfortable going
along with the approving resolution.
Mr. Gniewek: I only want to indicate that as the resolution is written it
indicates this is subject to the waiving of the 500 foot by the
City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-1-2-4
by AFC Roofing & Insulation requesting waiver use approval for outdoor
storage of contractors materials and equipment on property located south
of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Bakewell 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 waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no
objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the
City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department stating there is no
conflict with any City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Transmission Facilities. Also in our file is a letter from Detroit
Edison stating they have no objections. We have received a letter
from the Traffic Bureau saying the concerns of their department
have been met on previous petitions and this storage use request
poses no additional problems relative to public safety. Lastly, we
have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found, therefore, they
have no objections to the proposal.
Mr. Gniewek: Is it possible we may have some sort of view of the site with the
new parking indications as far as where the parking will be as far
as customer and employee parking is concerned?
Mr. Shane presented a site plan for the commissioners. Also there is a note on the
plan which says storage lot to be hard surfaced according to City
of Livonia code and regulations. As you know, the zoning ordinance
requires that the storage area be hard surfaced within a two-year
period and this note is in recognition of that particular
requirement.
11920
Mr. Tent: H, that note referring to the hard surface. Are they proposing to
do that within two years or will that be done simultaneously with
the development of the property?
Mr. Shane: If one were to take the note verbatim, it would be what the code
requires.
`tow Mr. Tent: They would comply with the two years?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us about your
plans for this property.
Scott Evett, Owner of AFC Roofing, 13101 Eckles Road, Plymouth: We are petitioning
for a contractors yard at this particular site for the location of
our business. We are a industrial, commercial and residential
roofing company and we work throughout the metropolitan Detroit
area and do a lot of work specifically in Livonia, Canton and
Farmington areas.
Mr. LaPine: At the back of your property there is a TV antenna - big dish. Is
that on your property?
Mr. Evett: I believe it is on the adjacent property. I am not aware of that.
Mr. LaPine: Are you moving from Plymouth to Livonia?
Mr. Evett: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: The list of equipment you have. How often does it come and go?
Mr. Evett: The majority of time it iss not in the yard. Right now 80% of the
equipment is not in the yard.
Mr. LaPine: I assume you do asphalt, roofing and things like that Do you store
any big drums that melt the tar there?
Mr. Evett: Currently our asphalt is very minor. We do not have the large
tanker kettles.
Mr. LaPine: Would they be stored outside or inside?
Mr. Evett: All outside.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How big are these items that you want to store?
Mr. Evett: If you are talking about the kettles, in today's roofing market
that system is very rarely used. However, those particular kettles
we have are probably the size of a trailer, which would be about
6 feet by 8 1/2 feet. The other two would be smaller.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are planning on gravelling that area now.
Nom.
11921
Mr. Evett: This particular plan shows both storage that we would use right now
and in the future. Anything we would be using right now would be
hard surfaced immediately if it does not have an acceptable surface
right now and within the period alloted us we will have made it
hard surfaced throughout.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You made a statement to Mr. LaPine that 80% of your equipment is
out. How about on the weekends?
Mr. Evett: It stays on the job.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you do your maintenance right there?
Mr. Evett: Any of our maintenance is done on the site.
Mr. Morrow: I think I saw somewhere in our background notes or heard in our
study session you had a crane?
Mr. Evett: You could call it a crane but it is also a boom truck. It would be
on the same line as a stake truck with approximately a 20 foot
length.
Mr. Morrow: That boom is not sticking up in the air?
Mr. Evett: Correct, and that is usually out of the yard also. The stick is
120 foot long but when it is detracted it is not allowed to go any
further than the 20 foot bed.
Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to make sure I understood about resurfacing the
lot. You said you plan within the two-year time period to hard
surface the entire portion of the lot that you are asking to be
designated for outside storage?
Mr. Evett: Anything that we would be utilizing.
Mr. Engebretson: You would comply with the ordinance that requires you to hard
surface the entire section of area that you are asking for approval
for outdoor storage?
Mr. Evett: If that is what is required.
Mr. Engebretson: In addition to that, you plan to hard surface whatever area
you would utilize for outdoor storage whether you are required by
ordinance to do it or not.
Mr. Evett: What I am saying is all the areas that we would use for outdoor
storage, we would hard surface.
Mr. Engebretson: That is the point I wanted to clarify because you are not
required to do that until two years.
Mr. Evett: I understand that but for our own use we would probably, at our
option, in other words this is a proposed plan. Right now we would
only utilize about one half of that. When we initially go in
11922
there if any of those areas are deficient for our purposes, we will
make sure those are taken care of immediately.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not trying to be antagonistic I just wanted to make sure I
really understand. I just wanted to make sure I heard you correct.
The only other question I would have is to inquire whether of not
any materials you use are toxic?
Mr. Evett: The toxicity levels would be no worse than gasoline or solvents. I
can't say nothing is toxic. We have glue, solvents, anything you
would use from an industrial standpoint or an application
standpoint of materials. The same materials we put on hospitals,
schools, once they are installed they are not toxic.
Mr. Engebretson: While they are not in an installed stage, while they are a raw
material, do they require any special handling, special disposal
consideration?
Mr. Evett: No different than any other material of this nature. United
Parcel Service could deliver the material.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-1-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#2-221-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 92-1-2-4 by AFC Roofing & Insulation requesting
waiver use approval for outdoor storage of contractors materials and
equipment on property located south of Schoolcraft Road between
Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 92-1-2-4 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 2-20-92, as revised, prepared by AFC
Roofing & Insulation which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That all existing graveled parking and equipment/material storage
areas shall be hard surfaced with concrete or asphalt within a two
(2) year period as required by Section 13.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3) That failure to comply with any and all conditions found in this
Resolution or with any and all conditions imposed upon this use by
the City Council or by any City Department will cause this matter
to be brought back to the Planning Commission and to the City
Council for further consideration.
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, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
11923
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-12-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to
amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for
additional standards regarding satellite dish type antennas.
\r•
Mr. Engebretson: The City Planning Commission is the petitioner in this instance.
What we are proposing to do is to change the language in the
ordinance dealing with the regulation of satellite dishes in
residential areas to be clearer and more defensible. John, can you
tell us what the change is.
Mr. Nagy: I will let H Shane read it since he is the author.
Mr. Shane: As you indicated, the purpose of this amendment is to be more
definitive on why it is that satellite dish antennas are treated
differently than other ones, particularly in residential areas.
This is a recommendation of the Department of Law. The language
which is being added reads as follows: "Because of the unique size
and design of satellite dish type antennas and because the
objective of this regulation is to promote and preserve the peace
and tranquility of neighborhood residents, enhance the physical
appearance of the City, preserve the aesthetic quality and beauty
of its residential neighborhoods, eliminate or prevent visual
blight and preserve property values in accordance with the
comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section
1.02". The rest of it is existing language. It goes on to say
the mounting of satellite dish antennas, in certain areas, require
site plan approval.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-12-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
//2-222-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance
so as to provide for additional standards regarding satellite dish type
antennas, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 91-12-6-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language change will provide for more definitive
reasons and criteria for treating satellite dish antennae in a more
restrictive manner than other types of antennae.
2) That the proposed language amendment is recommended by the
Department of Law.
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.
Nor.
11924
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda will be Petition
91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna Piligian and Michael J.
George) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of I-275,
east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of
Num. Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML: M-1 to C-1; PO to C-2: and
OS & C4-III to C-2.
Mr. Bakewell 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 the rezoning proposals; however,
the ultimate use of the property may adversely impact on the
sanitary sewer system along Seven Mile Road. They will, therefore,
require the petitioner to submit to their office projected sanitary
sewer flows for the entire site as they relate to the original
design criteria for the Seven Mile Road sanitary sewer system. We
have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have
no objection.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to recognize Mayor Bennett, who was going to write a
letter but he decided he would come down and talk to us about some
background information regarding this project.
Mayor Bennett: I suspect it is a bit unusual for the Mayor to be here,
particularly at a public hearing on a zoning matter. Inasmuch as
my schedule got screwed up a week ago and it didn't get on my daily
calendar, I missed that opportunity to appear at your study meeting
and I apoligize for that. I am here tonight not to present the
case for the petitioner but to bring you up to date on how this
petition has reached this point and what has brought us to having
this matter before the Planning Commission.
As you know, over the years there have been several attempts to
zone, plan and develop what we have come to know as the Chestnut
Hills property and subsequently a little later on the Pentagon
property without any significant success to see fruition of some of
that zoning and planning. The only noticeable result is what Mr.
Bakewell pointed out to you, that is the medical center in the OS
there. There is no pride or pleasure taken in making those
comments that it has not been successful. For a number of reasons
it has not been, and one of the most important is what has happened
to the development economy of the region. Not just Livonia but all
over the state. Things have not worked out in the way of several
significant developments as we had hoped they would a number of
years ago and this has been a good example of that.
Historically Chestnut Hills and Pentagon were treated as two
separate entities. Chestnut Hills was owned by the Jonna Company
fir..
11925
months before they came into ownership of what is now known as the
Pentagon properties. We originally dealt with the Chestnut Hills
piece, which is the northerly section of this large piece of
property. Also as a bit of history, you will recall we had a Price
Warehouse proposed for the Penatagon piece, the southerly piece,
which met with significant opposition and ultimate denial. There
were various petitions involved with that and then we wound up in
*grow court with the owners of the property suing the City over the lack
of permission to build a Price Warehouse. The City was successful
at the Circuit Court level in defeating the petition for lawsuit
and that matter now is under appeal in the Court of Appeals by the
owners of these properties.
After the adjudication of the court case at the Circuit Court
level, some months later Frank Jonna called me and said we have not
been successful, what can we do to settle our differences with the
City and come to a new approach to the development of this property
that recognizes the changed economic conditions and other things
and proceed again to find a way to produce a fruitful development
on the property. So I sat down with representatives of the Jonna
Company. I suggested to them there are several things we would
have to see for us to be successful in some new approach. Among
those were we would first forget about any kind of an idea for
another Price Warehouse or Pace Warehouse or like type business
development in either of these two properties. Secondly, that it
would be important to recognize that M-1 zoning was not appropriate
for this area. In response to a question what would be good for
development up there, my general response is we certainly would
look for research and engineering type developments, clean industry
meaning the kinds of things we would get in ML. Of course, we
would not be offended with office uses at any level of development,
meaning two stories, six, eight or twelve. I said we would like to
'44116. see a down zoning of the M-1 to the ML classification.
Furthermore, any future development that would take place there
would have to recognize there are two significant areas that have
been designated as wetlands and that those wetland areas would have
to remain. That is that there would be no attempt to mitigate
those lands with properties outside the Livonia area. That any
commercial development, aside from what was already zoned
commercial at the very extreme south end of the property, would
have to be at the north end of the property and that commercial
development should be limited in size. Maybe Mr. Nagy will
checkmate me on this one, I believe we said not more than 130,000
square feet. Is that right?
Mr. Nagy: No, we said 250,000 square feet.
Mayor Bennett: Some limit would have to be placed so we know going into the
process what we would wind up with. We suggested that some of the
property that fronts on the expressway side, we would still prefer
to see with the idea of more than a two-story development but we,
when I say we I am speaking as a representative of the City, would
prefer to see multi-story development, if possible, along that
11926
expressway side of the property but we were not particularly
concerned with whether it was eight stories, six stories or four so
maybe we should be looking at a PO II as opposed to some of the
other classifications that exist there.
Then as this conversation over several meetings began to evolve,
Jonna suggested to me that how do you think the City would react if
we took a subdivision approach, that is we subdivided most of the
property that we have come to know as the Pentagon piece. I
reacted favorably to that idea on the basis that we are looking at
a very changed market condition, a very changed development
condition in this area, again meaning the whole metropolitan
Detroit area, and that might be a feasible way for them to market
and for us to see development if it was, in fact, subdivided. In
that context I suggested to them it would only work if they would
provide, in their planning, for an integral road system that would
serve all of the properties of Pentagon and Chestnut Hills.
If I have touched on all the bases, that is the kind of thing that
has brought to you tonight this petition for significant rezoning.
I think I have touched on all the elements of this proposal. I
think we probably are, in my opinion, on the track to finding a new
approach for development. It has been conceptually presented to
the City Council in an informal Committee of the Whole meeting.
Their reaction, if I perceived it correctly, was positive, with the
exception of the proposed layout, and it was only in its very
preliminary stages of the site planning of what you will see
tonight, the commercial piece. Not that they objected to the
commercial but the particular layout of the building and how it
particularly related to the expressway side of the development. I
don't know that since that session whether there has been any
further work on behalf of the Jonna people to designing a new site
plan. I know that is really down the road but perhaps they have
some new ideas on that now but that will be a problem. They are
aware, assuming approval of zoning, that they are going to have to
come up with a pretty good site plan on the commercial piece that
reflects both appearance considerations from both the Haggerty Road
side as well as the I-275 side. That is what brings us here
tonight and I feel it is important that I bring you up to date as
to how we got here and what some of the parameters are that I
suggested to these developers that they must address. I think they
have done that and if we are successful in these zoning changes, we
may get back into seeing some success stories with this
development. The final step of this will be, if we can come to
reasonable agreement all the way through the process, Pentagon
Properties will withdraw their appeal in the Court of Appeals. I
will suggest to you that is not a motivation for me being here to
tell you in any sense that is why I am recommending serious
consideration of these proposals. We won the law suit at the
Circuit Court level and we will win it at the Court of Appeals
level. However, we would prefer to settle our differences outside
the courts if we can do that and this will present an opportunity.
That will be one of the ultimate results of a successful
consideration of what you are going to see here before you tonight.
`r..
11927
Mr. Tent: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the fact that you came out here tonight and
your presentation was excellent. I want to play devil's advocate
for a minute and maybe you can answer the question. As you know,
zoning cannot be conditioned. While this plan is very grandiose
and looks great and, of course, it would meet a lot of the criteria
we are looking for in the City but let's say perhaps they went
bankrupt and the thing died. The land has been rezoned, etc. How
Slay could we effectuate this type of plan with any new owners? Is
there any assurances that we would have that we could pursue with
this plan?
Mayor Bennett: No more than any other piece of vacant property. You have already
seen the current zoning that is now there in place come to
fruition with a plan for development and again, I don't take any
joy in telling this story but part of the development got as far as
putting the foundations in the ground for an eleven story building
and those foundations sit there today, so the best laid plans of
mice and men don't work out as we would like them to sometimes and
I think this is one of the best cases around that points to that.
Mr. Tent: You have privy to a lot of the information. Would you say this is
a go situation?
Mayor Bennett: Let's relate a moment to the subdividing idea. It would not
surprise me at all to see the developer market and sell off
individual parcels. That is the whole idea of subdividing. I
think in that context, because we will be dealing with smaller
entities in an overall development, there is a better opportunity
to get it developed, recognizing where we are today that some of
those grandiose dreams, and I don't say that in sarcasm, that we
have looked at on this property and some others in Livonia in
recent years have failed. I know there is a representative from
fir. Victor here tonight. Look how that development has slowed compared
to the time schedule that we saw for it about 7 years ago. That is
not to say anything was wrong with the project. The market has
changed. Times have changed. Financing has changed. I don't
think there are those guarantees. In all honesty I think what we
are going to see Mr. Tent, if this proposal gets through, we will
see probably the commercial development. I think the petitioner
will tell you that he has a good handle on at least one, possibly
two tenants, for the center. That reminds me I did forget to touch
on an area of consideration. Commissioners may recall there was a
point in time when I said that we probably should not have any
commercial in this development here. Again, some things have
happened that have caused me to come a full circle. Those things
that have happened are things that have happened outside the
boundary lines of our City. The development of Meijers in
Northville Township. The Novi Hilton, the Chili's, the Hampton and
other developments have suggested that a new commercial kind of
center has evolved there and I am a bit unconvinced that it would
be wrong to say no more commercial on our side recognizing what has
taken place there. Also my thinking has changed to this degree. I
think the community of interest of any commercial that goes into
the area that it will serve will be primarily areas that are
outside our boundary lines.
11928
The potential store would be Target. The market circle that would
serve Target would be a circle and the bigger part of that circle
would be outside Livonia. I am of the opinion now that it will not
create a circumstance that would draw down to any significant
degree our other existing shopping centers in the City.
.. Mr. Tent: You answered my question. I just wanted to echo my concerns that
No
it would be a go situation and we are not buying something that
will never materialize and will be sold off to someone else.
Mayor Bennett: You can ask that question again of the petitioners but I think that
the answer is yes there is a chance of sale of elements of this
property but I don't know that is wrong.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is happening on Haggerty Road? Is that being widened?
Mayor Bennett: There is no City project involved there. That is another good
question you could ask when Frank Jonna is up here. If memory
serves me, in their original plan they provided for the widening of
Haggerty all the way to the wetlands and, if memory serves me, it
is also on both sides of the road. I think he is going to tell you
tonight that would still be a commitment.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Mayor, you referred to the Northville and the Novi area. Have
you seen any specific plans that Northville and Novi have between
Six Mile and Nine Mile on the west side of Haggerty Road?
Mayor Bennett: I have not seen specific plans. I am somewhat familiar with their
zoning, which is on the opposite side of Haggerty, which I believe
is primarily office zoning from Meijers on down to Six Mile. The
property that Ward Presbyterian Church owned, some of that has been
sold. That has died on the vine.
Mr. Nagy: The whole corridor is either planned or zoned for office.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you know of any area along that three mile strip, including
Novi, that is zoned for C-1 or C-2 other than that small area you
see on the plan?
Mr. Nagy: No I don't. To the extent that it is there, it is not significant
compared to the office that is projected.
Mrs. Fandrei: I guess my concern about the C-2 you are referring to, and I guess
I am a little confused but I will wait to see what is presented,
but I have a clip from the Observer, that was just in this month,
referring to this northwest area and it was the shop owners on
Plymouth Road that are really concerned because they are doing so
poorly and the reference was the commercial in the northwest corner
of our City is taking away from the eastern end of the City. This
is something I have heard also from the manager of the Livonia
Mall. That is my number one, top of the list, concern about us
going into the type of shops that have been mentioned in this area.
Now
11929
Mayor Bennett: The only two shops I am aware of are Target and a super, super-
market. A supermarket will not, of course, be a factor affecting
Livonia Mall, Laurel Park Place or Wonderland Center. I share that
concern. This is not, in any way, to suggest a change in my
attitude as it relates to strip commercial development. I think my
posture would continue to be the same. We will deal with that
,` perhaps when Chili's gets through the process at Council level and
if it gets to my office, we will have to deal with that. We will
deal with it at Seven Mile and Newburgh. I think you know my
posture on that. There is no change in philosphy here but just a
recognization that we are dealing with a pretty remote section in
Livonia as it relates to our other commercial development. I
believe the sphere of influence of that center will not be a
dominant factor in any sense of the word on the existing commercial
in our City. That is a judgment call.
Mrs. Fandrei: I understand your comment. Being so remote and divided by the
expressway, it will not as likely be the Livonia residents that
would participate in these shops. The same thought might have been
when they put the Kroger in at Eight Mile and Farmington. My
understanding is it isn't doing very well, that whole center. We
have had that Kroger in trouble. We have closed two Farmer Jacks.
One has relocated, but we have still closed two. I do shop in that
Six Mile Food Emporium and they are never really busy. Again, a
concern with the same type of thing. If we had the Krogers in such
trouble in that center, I do not see this one would be that much
more viable. That is a concern I have.
Mayor Bennett: I appreciate your concern. It is a judgment call. I think this
merits consideration for some of the reasons I mentioned. There
will be some other ones brought up I am sure.
Now
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Mayor, knowing the financial planning of the City now with the
racetrack money being taken away from us, federal sharing has been
cut, the state is not giving us the money they used to, assuming
this 200,000 square foot development comes about, how many tax
dollars would the City generate?
Mayor Bennett: I would have to know the value. I don't even know if one has been
proposed.
Mr. LaPine: Would we generate $25,000, $30,000 a year?
Mayor Bennett: I would say easily that.
Mr. LaPine: I think that is a big consideration.
Mayor Bennett: It is a consideration. Development has slowed for a number of years
in our community. We have more than kept pace with inflation
primarily due to new development, both residential and commercial
industrial. That certainly has slowed down for a number of
reasons, one which is the economy, and the other being we are
approaching the ultimate development of our community although
there are still some significant areas yet to be used.
Mr. LaPine: The money would be welcome.
11930
Mayor Bennett: Not always the pure basis however. You know that. Not only is
that a philosphy of this commission but it is my own and I think
shared by Council, and that is that our objective is, and has been
for many, many years, to provide for balanced zoning, a balance
between residential, commercial and industrial. I think we are
doing a good job of that, particularly in recent years. I don't
'okIso, ' believe this proposal will offend that.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think there are many things connected with this
property. I think you had indicated that at some of your informal
discussions that if we project out where C-2 should be approved,
some of the concerns were about the site plan and what the ultimate
development would look like. While we are talking about this, I
just wanted to say that is one of my concerns. It is either the
first thing you see coming into Livonia or the last thing you see
going out and I think we are all familiar with the 96 curve around
Brighton where we see commercial development there that does not do
anything to enhance that City's position as far as aesthetically
beautiful. I am not saying C-2 is what should be there but I am
saying should that prevail, that would be a large area of concern
for me and probably a lot of other people connected with the City.
Has anything like that been discussed?
Mayor Bennett: I made mention of that in my comments but maybe I didn't focus on
it enough. The developers have been appraised of that very serious
concern even to the point of a conceptual site plan for that C-2
that was virtually rejected . That kind of aproach would just not
do the job from the very standpoint you are talking about. That
question was raised and that position was raised primarily by
members of the City Council when we had a similar review of this
proposal with them two or three months ago.
Mr. Gniewek: Discussion was brought up about the zoning that exists across the
street from this location. Although it presently exists as office
service, etc. , I am sure they are going through the same doldrums
as we are as far as this is concerned and they are probably looking
more to the same sort of situation that we are looking at here and
we may see a change in zoning across the street also. So
commercial could be developed across the street also. There is
land available for them to go along with what they have established
already as a commercial strip. For them extending it further down
seems like a logical thing for me at that point. Also, with us
looking for commercial at this particular location, I think is in
keeping with what has been happening up at that intersection of
Eight Mile and Haggerty Roads. This seems to me to be a proposal
that does have a lot of merits. We are talking about zoning. We
have no idea what this particular site would look like and that is
a big problem that will come before us in the future. What we are
looking at basically now is strictly the zoning and the conception
of changes to the zoning that we are looking at tonight rather than
site plans.
Mayor Bennett: You won't see site plans at this juncture exept potentially for the
commercial.
11931
Mr. Gniewek: I just think it is important to reflect on the fact that we are not
going to see anything like that tonight.
Mayor Bennett: Unless Frank Jonna has taken some thinking down the road further
than what I have last seen.
Nom. Mr. Gniewek: Even at that, all it is, is an idea. All we are going to do is
think about that and then when it comes before us we will have to
decide what is best for that type of development.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think this kind of informed dialogue is
very helpful in getting from where we are to wherever we end up. I
just wish that all of our City officials felt the same way. Thank
you for coming.
Frank Jonna, 1533 N. Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: I would like to thank the Mayor
for that introduction. Briefly, I would like to just add that the
proposal before you, from a zoning perspective, is a significant
reduction in density for the entire project, specifically Chestnut
Hills from what we had anticipated developing there. The C4-III
classification gave us the potential to build something in the
nature of 650,000 square feet of combination office and hotel.
That would be pared down significantly in the C-2 zoning. With
respect to your site plan concerns, we recognize the high
visibility and the impact this site has on the City of Livonia and
have done some very preliminary site plans but are not ready at
this time to present them to you. We certainly understand the
exposure this site has and we are concerned about the impression
the site will have from the freeway as well as the Haggerty Road
access. I would like to point out also that the top portion,
approximately seven acres of this site, is remaining as a wetland.
It was previously zoned P.O. I am not sure whether we are able to
get that nature preserve zoning or not.
Mr. Nagy: Not as yet. Under our present ordinance the nature preserve
classification is limited to publicly owned land so we are looking
at an ordinance amendment to allow private as well as public lands
to fall under that classification. That is why it is not included
at this time.
Mr. Jonna: Currently that land has a conservation easement over it and will
remain in its natural condition. The concept that we propose for
the Pentagon site is one that would upgrade the zoning from M1 to
ML. Because of the pyramid zoning, it allows us the opportunity to
put a variety of different uses in there. We are marketing it as a
corporate park. We would like to put all the infrastructure in
regarding the road system that would allow us to parcel it off and
provide parcels to various types of users that could range anywhere
from as small as an acre and a half up to ten to fifteen acres.
That would give us an opportunity to market this to many Livonia
residents, whose current businesses we are seeing move out to
places like Plymouth and Northville. Our market has not been able
to compete with those markets because we haven't had the small
parcels and the infrastructure in place to do that. That is why
11932
we have asked for the consistent zoning of ML. We recognize that
this property will not probably be feasible for the typical tool
and die type of operation but we perceive this to have an upscale
type of user that will be in keeping with the trend and the
high-tech market. The portion of the site that we would like to
see remain for office development is along the freeway and would be
�..• the highest point in Wayne County. We would perceive in this
current market environment an office building of a maximum of six
stories would be feasible there given the fact that it wouldn't
make sense to develop any structured parking so that would probably
limit the height of the building we propose there. That also has
the opportunity to provide a corporate user type of site. There is
approximately 12 acres there. If combined with the portion of
Chestnut Hills that is unzoned, it could grow to about 16 acres.
We feel that in this plan we have tried to address all of the needs
of this area and provide the diversity that will allow us to put
this product on the market and develop something that will be both
a tribute to the community as well as our company.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Jonna, could you touch on the commercial property that the
Mayor alluded to? If this zoning was successful and you were to
develop the commercial property, what type of commercial do you
have in mind? Are you privy to say?
Mr. Jonna: The C-2 would allow for a variety of uses. We envision that this
would be a large shopping center that would be one that would be
more of a community center than a neighborhood center. We do not
see many small users in this type of use. We would perceive that
this would be a center where the anchors would range from 100,000
feet, 50,000 feet, hopefully no less than 5,000 feet.
*la, Mr. Tent: Do you have any potential clients? Do you have people that you are
working with now that would be interested in going ahead right now?
If you are working with them and are not at liberty to discuss it,
that is fine.
Mr. Jonna: Yes, we have proposals that are in place with a prospective anchor
for 100,000 feet. We have entered into negotiations with a super-
market. People ask why would they want to be across the street
from Meijers. Look at the phenomenal volume they do. Their
comment was Meijers isn't for everybody and even though they are
doing an enormous volume in there, there is still a market for
various specialty types of stores. This would be a 56,000 square
foot plus store, which would be specifically a food store and not
have all the soft goods that Meijers has.
Mr. Tent: So actually you are ready to go ahead? This isn't a venture that
once the zoning goes through, you would sell the property?
Mr. Jonna: There is certainly the possibility portions of the property would
be sold. Many of the anchors today wish to control their own
destinies so they like to own their own little piece of the pie. A
sale of portions of the property is possible. Our intent is to
accomplish the zoning, come back to you with a site plan that is
feasible to you and attempt to build that as quickly as we can. We
11933
did not want to give up the Chestnut Hills plan. It was an
excellent plan. It was one that we worked very hard on and stuck
with for some time. Unfortunately, the hotel market has been
severly depressed, the office market is nonexistent, and we feel
that the biggest demand we have had has been in the commercial
arena and that more than likely that would be the portion of the
property that would come on line the quickest.
Mr. Tent: I would like to see you succeed because you have been waiting a
long time.
Mr. LaPine: What you are telling us is if you are successful here, you have at
least one tenant you can start construction for at this point? You
would be in charge of all the construction? If we saw the site
plan, we would be assured that is what we would get? You would not
then sell it off and the new buyer of the property would say I
don't like this design?
Mr. Jonna: There is nobody first of all who would buy it in the condition it
is in right now. The value in that property is for us to come to
you and work with you to develop a site plan that is acceptable to
you and works for our proposed tenant. Our commitment is that we
are involved in the property and we want to develop it and we want
to stay with the property but there are portions that may be sold
off. We intend to stay involved in the development, construction
and the architecture.
Mr. LaPine: That puts me at ease. I was worried we would have three or four
different people coming in there building three or four different
types of buildings and that would not happen.
Mr. Jonna: No, that is not our intent.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, what affect, if any, does this water tap moratorium
have on properties such as this?
Mr. Nagy: I believe they already had their water lines constructed prior to
the official moratorium. In other words, the water line was
extended to serve that area pre-cutoff. What the moratorium
affects is the extensions of new water mains and to that extent if
they don't have it, they are going to be affected by it. As far as
I know it was extended because they had already started
construction although they certainly have stopped it but because of
the prior development with the footings for the hotel, I believe
they are post cut-off by the moratorium.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that your understanding Mr. Jonna?
Mr. Jonna: Our engineer is researching that and that is his preliminary
finding that because we have a water main extension started through
Chestnut Hills, that would be in our favor. Also, along Haggerty
Road there is an existing water main that goes through the access
drive through the CBS Fox property. If you are interested, I have
a very preliminary plat that represents how we might parcel up the
Pentagon site.
11934
Mr. Engebretson: If you will hold off for just a minute, Mr. Vyhnalek has a
question for you.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about Haggerty Road? What plans do you have for that?
Mr. Jonna: We have a permit in place with the County that calls for road
improvements that would tie into the existing entrance to the
Haggerty High-Tech building. That would include a full lane on our
side and a full lane on the west side from the RE down to Meijers.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What happens if you get the ML and it starts and let's say in a few
years, Haggerty is still two lanes down to Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Jonna: From the RE section to Seven Mile it will still be two lanes. We
would propose three points of access, one that exists from Haggerty
Road that currently serves CBS Fox, another one that accesses Seven
Mile and the improvements to Seven Mile appear to be adequate for
the type of volume we are projecting. The other one would come
adjacent to the OS property. The types of use that we are
proposing are much, much less intensive than what we had proposed
before. We have not done a new traffic study for this zoning plan
but by simply reducing the office use, I don't think we would on
this whole development be able to get as much density as we had on
Chestnut Hills alone.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Haggerty Road is congested between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads.
Mr. Jonna: It is most congested north of Eight Mile Road. Between Seven Mile
and Eight Mile, the biggest advantage that we market to the site,
is the fact that we have two means of ingress and egress to the
freeway. Of course we only have one building at the site now and
experience no traffic problems with that. The heavy traffic comes
from the north and has to get on and off the freeway at Eight Mile
Road. That is clearly a congested corner. We tell people to come
to Seven Mile to exit and they don't have any problems doing that.
Mayor Bennett: On that point, perhaps we could ask Mr. Nagy to request a report
from our Engineering Department relative to Eight Mile Road. If
memory serves me Wayne County has a project that would widen Eight
Mile from Northville Road to I-275 and I know we have a project in
the mill for 1993 construction from I-275 to Newburgh.
(Mr. Jonna presented his preliminary plan at this point)
Mr. Jonna: We have had interest from restaurants. We are committed to a
upscale type product and have rebuffed the drive-thru type
restaurant. We are not interested in seeing either a gas station
or a drive-thru restaurant on that site.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-12-1-24 closed.
4r.
11935
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
�'�► in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-12-1-24 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for development of
the subject properties in a manner which will compliment adjoining
uses and within the spirit of the Future Land Use Plan.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning proposing an ML, P0, POII and
C-1 districts will result in more restrictive zoning
classifications being placed on the properties in question.
3) That the proposal to rezone property to C-2 will provide for more
of a mixed use development plan for the area.
4) That the proposal to rezone property to ML will provide for
industrial type uses which are very restrictive in nature and which
will tend to attract less traffic to the area.
Mrs. Fandrei: My concern is we have just heard this, this evening. I would like
to suggest a substitute motion to table this at least until we can
evaluate this a little more thoroughly. We haven't really had a
chance to absorb it and I would like to suggest that.
No,, On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#2-223-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to consider a substitute resolution on Petition
91-12-1-24.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Kluver, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to make a motion that we table this petition for
evaluation until such time that we have an opportunity to absorb it
and evaluate it.
11936
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
`'_ in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 91-12-1-24 until March 24, 1992.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Kluver, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
Mr. Engebretson: Now we will go back to the original approving resolution. Is
there any discussion? I have a comment. I am disappointed that we
haven't had the opportunity to take just a bit more time to look
into the various ramifications that we may find appropriate. This
is a very substantial proposal and my comments should not be
interpreted as being opposed to what is being proposed here. I
find the Mayor's presentation to be compelling and if I were forced
to make a decision tonight, I would defer to his more global view
of the entire community and the special experiences that he has had
that enable him to make a better judgment on this than I can.
Therefore, I will support the approving resolution but I want the
record to show I would have much preferred to have some time to
have some dialogue on some of the things that I think are major
41111. concerns that would have worked to the benefit of the City and to
the deverloper.
Mr. Morrow: I was in favor of a tabling resolution but my thinking was a little
bit closer to the next study session. I would like to offer a
motion to consider a different motion and then I would like to
offer a tabling resolution to March 3, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#2-224-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to consider a substitute resolution on Petition
91-12-1-24.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Kluver, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11937
Mr. Morrow: I would like to make a motion to table this petition until the
study meeting of March 3, 1992 so the Planning Commission can have
the intervening week to consider what we have heard here tonight
and perhaps as Mrs. Fandrei said to consider the gravity of the
proposal.
`w On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#2-225-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 91-12-1-24 until the study
meeting of March 3, 1992.
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, Kluver, Fandrei, Engebretson, Morrow
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Kluver: I look upon this project as something that will have an impact on
the community. Obviously there is some economic strength in it but
on the same token we are looking at some 60 plus acres. I want to
be convinced it is the right way to go. I supported your other
project that started in 1985 and went through a series of changes
all through 1990, which was the original Chestnut Hills. There is
no question in my mind that in that particular quarter of the City
that this uniqueness of what you are presenting has value but I
want to be perfectly clear in my own mind that I understand the
whole project so I am convinced this is the right way to go. You
convinced me back in 1985 and because of economic conditions and
certain other factors that came into play that didn't materialize,
your project was before the Victor project, and I don't want to see
the same thing happen again. I am speaking as a commissioner, as a
citizen and probably as a guy that wants to see development.
Mr. Jonna: I appreciate and understand your concerns. I guess the only thing
I want everybody to understand, obviously this is a very first
step. We would be coming back for platting. We are certainly
going to be before you and working with you to make sure this is a
quality project. The zoning is step one and we can't really get
into the specifics of the rest of that.
11938
Mr. Kluver: I can appreciate that. I have just one comment. I have seen this
commission spend two hours talking about a sign that is four foot
by six and we have 60 acres here.
Mr. Jonna: Whatever it takes. We are prepared to provide whatever you need.
'4411w"' Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jonna, the only portion that I am struggling with is the C-2 at
the north end. The rest I am comfortable with but that section I
am really having trouble with that. That is something I have to
work out. If you can shed any light on that. As I mentioned to
the Mayor, the Eight Mile and Farmington Road mega store, the
struggle for that shopping center, Laurel Park is having difficulty
getting totally leased and all of this C-2 that you are proposing
does have an impact on the rest of our City.
Mr. Jonna: No doubt about that. Both of those examples are a little bit
different. For what it is worth, the Schostak Company is
representing us in this as our broker. They also are very involved
in Laurel Park. They told us they do not see us attracting similar
types of tenants to this development.
Mrs. Fandrei: You are going to have small tenants. Perhaps Schostak would be
willing to come to our meeting next week and help give us a clearer
view of this.
Mr. Jonna: I am sure that can be arranged.
Mr. LaPine: I am sorry Mr. Kluver doesn't have the vision some of the other of
us have. If Mr. Jonna is in a hurry, is it possible that on the
third, we can hold a special meeting?
`tor Mr. Engebretson: We could schedule a special meeting. I just don't want to
personally feel under pressure. We have been at least in the
process of approving development plans to where it all started to
come together. I can remember Mr. Jonna coming several times for
extensions of site plans there for another year and we have always
cooperated with him on that and I fail to understand whether a week
or two really makes any difference. If Mr. Jonna can convince me
it will make a difference, I will study extra hard to make a
decision that night.
Mr. Jonna: May I ask what the process would be on the third and when the vote
would be taken?
Mr. Engebretson: The third would be a study meeting with the tenth being a regular
meeting and a voting meeting. Does that make any hardship on you
Mr. Jonna?
Mr. Jonna: It would be beneficial to my time table if we could request a
special meeting if it is not a great inconvenience.
Mr. Engebretson: I find that very hard to believe but we can call a special
meeting.
11939
Mr. Vyhnalek: I don't understand. Everybody wants this to go but they still have
questions that they didn't ask tonight and we will postpone it a
week and they will rehash the same stuff and then vote on it. It
is unbelievable. It is really unbelievable. I think it was
clearly brought out what is going to be developed there and we have
known that property for years and I don't see what good it is going
Nom" to do but that is just one commissioner's opinion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-226-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
25, 1992 on Petition 91-12-1-24 by Jonna Companies (Christine Jonna
Piligian and Michael J. George) requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of I-275, east of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road,
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to PO-II; PO & M-1 to ML; M-1
to C-1; PO to C-2; and OS & C4-III to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to hold a Special Meeting on March 3, 1992 on
Petition 91-12-1-24.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
raising existing and adding new processing fees.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposal to change the fees and add some fees for the
processing of the work we do and the purpose of this is to simply
make a motion to hold a public hearing.
On a motion duly made Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-227-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held on the question of whether or not to
amend the Zoning Ordinance so as to establish filing fees for site plan
approval and, to increase filing fees for waiver use approval.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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.
The next item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the 368th Special
Meeting held on February 4, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
11940
#2-228-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 368th Special Meeting held on February
4, 1992 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
fir. AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei, McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the 637th Regular
Meeting held on February 11, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#2-229-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 637th Regular Meeting held on February
11, 1992 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek,
Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition
92-2-8-2 by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a new two-story apartment building on the
east side of Brookfield just south of Five Mile in Section 22.
Mr. Bakewell presented the site plans to the commission.
Mr. Bakewell: This is a proposal to build an apartment building housing ten
units, four one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units. There
would be access from both Brookfield, which is on the west, and
Fairfield, which is on the east, to parking areas on either side of
the building. They have provided the proper number of parking
spaces.
Mr. McCann: Do the site plans show any carports?
Mr. Bakewell: This particular site plan does not show any carports.
Dan DiComo, representing Kamp-DiComo, 15875 Middlebelt: From the time I left the
study meeting until tonight we have been in discussions regarding
the two questions that came up at your last meeting, the materials
11941
used on the building and also the carports, and we have made
progress to the point where the owner would like us to have ten
carports on the site. It was our intention to suggest something a
little bit different than normal carports, which would block a lot
of the view from the roads towards the interior of the site. We
have been back and forth to Florida to resolve the problem before
tonight's meeting and we couldn't do it in time to represent on
this drawing. (Mr. DiComo pointed out on site plan where they
would like to locate the carports. ) There would be one carport for
each unit. Everything has been over the phone so it has been
difficult to get everything hashed out. As opposed to just drawing
a normal metal topped carport, we are trying to come up with
something different. The owner has agreed to do that. We just
have not finalized what those carports would look like. We are
working on that portion and we would like to show that they will be
on these parking spaces. If there would be some sort of approval
knowing that we are going to do that, I don't know if that is
possible or not. With the material, we are going to stick with
brick exterior and asphalt shingle roof. We are going to stick
with something in keeping with the apartment building on the north
and also on Brookfield, which is pretty much into the brown tones.
That has been the discussion but I haven't been able to reflect any
of that here.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. DiComo, I think this solution sounds very good. I think one
per unit is adequate. I think that is all that would be needed. I
think that is mostly what apartment dwellers have is one per unit.
I like your idea. It sounds like a good idea.
Mr. Morrow: He meets the parking requirement. All the other requirements
perhaps we could condition on the basis that he brings back the
`�. carport plan for approval but approve everything else on that
condition.
Mr. Tent: Mr. DiComo, regarding the carports. In your honest opinion, will
those carports detract from the complex the way you have it as far
as blocking the view? You must feel you can design the carport so
it will still add to the aesthetics of the development?
Mr. DiComo: I think personally the carports detract from the view just because
of the narrow portion of the road but I think in splitting them up
and keeping them in smaller sections, and also the ideas with
raising them up a little bit and having a peak roof, keeps it
shorter. The idea is to shorten it down and to also have a smaller
area which would really help. It would be the least obtrusive.
Mr. Tent: So it will be obtrusive having the carports there for this small
development?
Mr. DiComo: I think they are obtrusive but I think they are a necessity and so
does the owner.
Mr. LaPine: There are going to be four carports?
Mr. DiComo: There will be ten total.
11942
Mr. LaPine: You don't know if you are going to have any brick on those?
Mr. DiComo: That is really what we are working on now.
Mr. Engebretson: I trust you will find a way to make the carports work.
Mr. LaPine: The line of trees on the north, do they stay?
Mr. DiComo: Yes they do.
Mr. LaPine: South of those there are a couple of large trees. I assume they
are coming down?
Mr. DiComo: I think there are two large trees coming down.
Mr. LaPine: The house that is to the south, that is coming down?
Mr. DiComo: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: To the south of this property there is still some vacant land. Who
owns that land? Does the owner of this property, own that land?
Mr. DiComo: The owner of this property does not own that land.
Mr. LaPine: Is that land zoned R-7?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mr. Gniewek: Since we are having a special meeting next week and we don't have
all the materials chosen yet nor do we have a plan reflecting the
carports, what would be the problem tabling this until the next
`'` meeting and voting on this along with the other item.
Mr. Engebretson: Could you have it ready by then Mr. DiComo?
Mr. DiComo: I will make certain that I do. Will I make the Council agenda?
Mr. Engebretson: We can waive the seven-day waiting period.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-230-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 92-2-8-2 by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C. requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct a new two-story apartment
building on the east side of Brookfield just south of Five Mile in
Section 22, to March 3, 1992.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11943
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 638th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on February 25, 1992 was adjourned at 10:20
p.m.
Now CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
ATTEST: " (/�Lit. t `L t. 01,
Jack EngebrJetson, Chairman
jg
ern