HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-10-2522715
MINUTES OF THE 9W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 9W Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-09-0140 STEVEN SCHAFER
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-09-
01-10, submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on behalf of David and
Paula White and Crystal Sickels, requesting to rezone the
properties at 9229 Newburgh Road and 9350 Stonehouse
Avenue, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between
Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast 114 of Section 31
from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
22716
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated September 27, 2005, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. However, we wish to make the
petitioner aware of the fact that the storm sewer facilities in
Newburgh Road, in accordance with an agreement between the
Cities of Livonia and Westland, are very restricted in their use.
A greater degree of detention or a sewer extension may be
required in conjunction with this development. No additional
right-of-way is required. Storm water detention will be required
in accordance with Wayne County's storm water management
ordinance. The following legal description is provided for the
proposed rezoning. There is an error in the description provided
by the petitioner." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner? Seeing none, will the petitioner please come
forward?
Steven J. Schafer, Schafer Development, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite
720, Southfield, Michigan 48075. I'm before you tonight to
request a rezoning for R-1, 7,200 square fool lots. Its our
intention to comply with the single family ordinance, and we're
also in discussions with Leo Soave to make sure that we tie the
two together. In case zoning prevails, we'll make sure that the
stub streets line up and be able to connect the two
developments together. We have no objection with the right-of-
way or any of the other comments, and if you have any
questons, I'll be happy to answer them for you.
Mr. La Pine:
When was the last time you talked to Mr. Soave?
Mr. Schafer:
Probably about a week ago.
Mr. La Pine:
He was in here last week and he seemed to indicate to us that
you and him had not reached any agreement and there was no
likelihood thatthere was going to be an agreement reached.
Mr. Schafer:
That's true. We haven't reached an agreement, but I dont know
about the likelihood. I mean, him and I met Iasi week and he
seemed ... I don't know why he would tell you one thing and
tell me another. I dont know, but in either way, we're going to
22717
have to work together to make sure the two subdivisions are
tied together.
Mr. La Pine:
Isn't one of the problems with yours is that you don't have a
wide enough frontage on Newburgh? One of your lots it not
wide enough.
Mr. Schafer:
We're probably going to be putting some detention up in that
area, and then we're talking to the resident next door to make
sure she understands what's going on. Hopefully at some point,
if she does decide to do something with her property, it could
just be included together, but we will meet the 7,200 square foot
requirement.
Mr. La Pine:
Have you and Leo talked to the point where there is a possibility
that the two of you could come together and build a subdivision
as one big subdivision and probably do a better job of the way
it's laid out?
Mr. Schafer:
That's the discussions I had with him. Like I say, it kind of
throws me a little bit with the representation to me last week
because I did deliver him a package of aerials and drawings and
we dratted some things and we are in discussions. I would
hope that would be the case.
Mr. La Pine:
Have you been in any discussions with the City about the land
that the City owns next to you?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes. I contacted the Law Department. You know I wanted to
actually do a swap potentially and maybe give up some of the
Sickel property, develop the park and see if we could swap it off
if there was an economic way of making it a win-win for the City.
But they had indicated that was purchased with government
grants and that it would prohibit them from disposing of that
property in any way, shape or form. That's what the Law
Department informed me of.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Good evening, Mr. Schafer. I'm delighted to hear that there's
communication between you and Mr. Soave's development
because I frankly feel that its advantageous to both the north
and the south developments there, and if you could coordinate
and cooperate in areas such as roadways, water detention and
open space requirements, I think it would enhance the
development and be good forlhe people who move in there
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, I think so as well. Its a natural. And actually, I didn't even
realize Mr. Soave had picked up that property until I came in
and made the submittal and they mentioned there was a
22710
proposal next door. I've known Leo for a long time. Obviously
we've seen each other.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
lwould even be nice ifyou could come up with a joint site plan.
Mr. Schafer:
I would hope that could happen at some point here in the very
near future as we progress, and I think we're on a little bit
different time frames right now, but we are communicating and
we'll make sure that we'll have a development that's cohesive. I
think it is in both of our best interests.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Inasmuch, sir, as these two developments will be roughly 60
new homes, at least, that perhaps you can work out some
details in reference to open spaces.
Mr. Schafer:
Right. Arohileclurels, things like that, get on the same page on
everything. Absolutely.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Schafer, I assume that you have a purchase agreement
based on the rezoning?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you under any type of time constraint?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, I have quite a lengthy period of time. I believe it shouldn't
even be an issue for us. If we get the zoning, we're prepared to
close even if we don't have site plan as long as we know we
have zoning, but we do have plenty of time under those
agreements.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I guess the reason I ask that is because, and it's not
necessary, but when Mr. Soave came in with his plan, he had a
schematic showing how he was going to develop the property. I
think you've heard the other commissioners say we'd like to see
some sort of a joint venture here because, as one
commissioner, I feel R1 is the proper zoning for that area as
long as the plans work, and I guess that's where I'm coming
from. We've heard some conjecture here tonight. How you and
Mr. Soave resolve this thing, that will be up to you, but as a
commissioner, I would like to see some sort of an integrated
plan to develop that area, not only for the City but for the
residents around there, because based on the prior public
hearing, they're troubled about what goes in there. They realize
the zoning matches their zoning, but they're concerned about
how it builds out and that is primarily my concern.
22719
Mr. Shane:
I wondered, Mr. Schafer, if you've gone far enough to be able to
tell us where you're taking access to this properly?
Mr. Schafer:
We would propose to have access from Stonehouse and
Newburgh and then tying into a stub street. I think Leo's came
short, so we correspond our stub street so there could be
ingress and egress all the way through and back in through
Leo's so he doesn't have a dead end. We're working on where
the most appropriate location for that is. I think he showed one
way to the west end. We're talking about moving it up a little bit
so its not so close to Stonehouse and it works a little better. I
think in very short order we'll have that worked out. Just so you
do know, I did build and develop that Skmehouse street there
with all those new houses. I bought that school property very
early on in my career. Its a very nice neighborhood. The values
are very strong over there, and we want to do something very
nice. I just want to assure you that I've got a good pulse for that
area and I think that we could lie it in nicely to Stonehouse and
have good ingress and egress through both properties.
Mr. Shane:
The reason I asked that question was, I think Mr. La Pine
mentioned the parcel that goes to Newburgh Road is quite
narrow. It's 167 feet wide or so, which means if you tried to put
a 60 foot road in there and lots along that road, it will be quite
deficient in size.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
And you mentioned you'd maybe use some of that for drainage
purposes?
Mr. Schafer:
Absolutely. I mean Wayne County has some pretty serous
standards now.
Mr.Shane:
So I was just concerned. Have you thought far enough ahead
of how you're going to deal with that shortage?
Mr. Schafer:
I'm in discussions too with the neighbor next door. I'm actually
trying to meet again with her. I've spoken with her a couple
times and hopefully at some point I'll be able to have some
further discussions with her as we approach the site planning
portion ofthis project.
Ms. Smiley:
You said that you've discussed with ... be that 9309, that piece
to the north, that small piece?
Mr. Schafer:
No, to the south.
22720
Ms. Smiley:
That 9201, is that what he's talking about? Okay. And this
piece to the north of that, what is that, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
There are actually two parcels to the north. This one here with
frontage along Newburgh contains a single family residence that
is privately held. The balance of the area to the north, which is
this parcel extending all the way to Storehouse, is owned by the
City of Livonia.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. And has anyone approached the people to the north
then, thalsmall little piece that's notthe City's?
Mr. Schafer:
Yeah, I spoke with them at the time that I was trying to find out if
the City would sell. Unless you have that whole piece from the
City loo, it wouldn't be feasible. The way that house is, I mean
it's onenled very well on that lot. It wouldn't give you much
utility at all, and he really didn't have that much of an interest in
selling. Typically, if you have a house on a large piece of
property, you can justify the number, but when you have to buy
a house and tear it down and redevelop it on such a small
piece, it economically becomes more difficult.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a little footnote here. I wasn't aware until the last time we
had the hearing for the Soave property that you were the
developer on Stonehouse. To me, that's one of the nicest
subdivisions in the City, so I want to compliment you and the
way the neighbors have maintained it.
Mr. Schafer:
Thank you. When I do drive up there, it is quite nice because it
was built quite some time ago. People really keep up the
houses very nicely in there.
Mr. Morrow:
They surely do.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a couple questions. It sounds like you are only in the
conversation field with Mr. Soave.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, I would like to take it beyond that. It really is to our benefit
to make this thing happen.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I think it is to our benefit to make sure that you two get
your heads together before you get the rezoning. This is my
opinion, you know. Is there anything else for you to say?
Mr. Schafer:
I'm going to tell him you said that. It will move our meeting
along I'm sure quite soon. I'm all for working with Leo. Leo and
I have been in discussions. When I first contacted him, he was
22721
getting ready to go to Italy for a couple weeks and then he got
back. We've had a couple of discussions since. We just met
last week. We changed some papers as far as plans, details,
and things that I provided for him.
Mr. Alanskas: So in your mind you feel you two are making progress?
Mr. Schafer: I feel that is the case.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing none, Mr. Schafer, any last
words?
Mr. Schafer: I just appreciate your time, and I can assure that I'll work hard to
make this happen with Leo and deliver a nice development.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that Mr. Soave and Mr. Schafer are
cooperating. I think its really going to be an asset to that area,
and as a result, I would like to offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-01-10 submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on
behalf of David and Paula White and Crystal Sickels, requesting
to rezone the properties at 9229 Newburgh Road and 9350
Stonehouse Avenue, located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast
114 of Section 31 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2005-09-01-10 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with existing developed lots in
the area immediately to the west of the subject property;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area; and
22722
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
land use recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan.
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: Piercecchi, Shane
NAYES: LaPine, Morrow, Smiley, Alanskas
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion fails. Is there an altemative
motion? Mr. LaPine?
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#10-106-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-01-10 submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on
behalf of David and Paula While and Crystal Sickels, requesting
to rezone the properties at 9229 Newburgh Road and 9350
Stonehouse Avenue, located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 31 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2005-09-01-
10 be tabled for further discussion of the proposed development
of the subject property, particularly in regard to the relational
aspects of adjoining properties.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have any date in mind?
Mr. LaPine
No date. Whatever he's ready to come in with some plans.
Mr. Alanskas:
We'll leave it up to the Planning Director.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
This is a motion to table it?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And what is the purpose of the tabling motion here?
Mr. LaPine:
The reason for the tabling motion is for Mr. Schafer and Mr.
Soave to come in with a plan to show us how theyre going to
develop the two pieces of property at one time.
22723
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. So the proofs in the pudding then with you. Okay. I can
accept that.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Schafer:
Well, what exactly are you looking for? I think, you Knox, Mr.
Soave's been approved. We have to join stub streets. We're
going to have similar sized lots. I dont necessarily...
Mr. Alanskas:
We're looking for you to come back to us with an actual plan of
what you and Mr. Soave want to do.
Mr. Schafer:
I have a plan. Can we ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Not now we cant, no. We've already tabled it.
Mr. La Pine:
When Mr. Soave came in, I had no idea you were buying the
other portion of the property. If we had known that at the time
that you were buying the property and he was buying the other
portion, we might have held this thing up until you both got
together. Now I agree with you. You're at a disadvantage.
He's got all his approvals. He can go ahead and build and tell
you to go smoke whatever you smoke. But the bottom line is, I
think he knows how we feel. We let him know that at our
meeting the last time we talked to him. He indicated to us that
he didn't think that you two could get together. You were trying
to buy him out or something. I don't know all the ramifications of
this deal, but you let him know that we want this thing, and I
personally will see that some of the council members
understand this so when it gets to them, maybe they will hold it
up until you two guys get together.
Mr. Schafer:
Iljusldoesn'tseem...
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Schafer, excuse me. I think that the bottom line is that you
should get together with Mr. Soave and both of you then call our
office and talk to Mr. Taormina and we will put you back on
schedule as soon as possible.
Mr. Schafer:
Okay.
22724
YI=li4E:'b'>,9=kIYOle] : K1111arILSG1I=1 N X&I A9=1:7
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-01-11,
00509-01-11, submitted by Terry Sever, on behalf of Harvey and
Jewell Harris and John and Diane Breitenbach, requesting to
rezone the properties at 31700 and 31750 Seven Mile Road,
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast 114 of
Section 3 from RUFB to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 19, 2005, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal
description should be used in connection with the rezoning.
Detention will be required in accordance with Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance, and the street approach
or driveway will require a permit from Wayne County." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from Peter and Mary Schietinger, dated October
12, 2005, which reads as follows: We live at 31705 Seven Mile
Road, drmctiy across the street from the two parcels in question.
We wish that the two parcels in question be rezoned to R-0 and
not R-1. A recent meeting was called to rezone a parcel of
property located on the north side of Seven Mile, adjacent to the
commercial property that borders Merriman and Seven Mile
Road. The present owner, Mr. Leo Soave, expressed a desire
to rezone that property from RUF to R-1. During that meeting,
Mr. Leo Soave expressed the following: (1) He had paid too
much for the property and in order to make money, he would
have to build homes based on R-1 parcels, instead of R-0, as
he originally planned. (2) It was stated at that meeting that Mr.
Soave had an option on the parcels to the west of those in
question, up to but not including the kennel. He stated that it
was fis intent to build R-0 homes on those parcels, as the land
became available. Here is a situation where the Planning
Commission is considering to allow an individual to build R-1
homes on the two far eastern parcels in question. This creates
the following situation: R-1 parcels on the east side and R-1
parcels on the west side. If this were to happen, do you really
think the public will believe that you will allow R-0 parcels in the
middle? 1 suggest the Planning Commission start developing a
22725
master residential plan for this area and not develop it as you go
along. If it is your intent to eventually rezone this entire area to
R-1 and not R-3, why dont you tell the public this and not lead
them down some path that gives them the impression that you
may rezone to R,3? R,3 is a larger lot size and would be more
in line with the larger lots on the south side of Seven Mile. Art=
you absolutely certain that your infrastructure will support R 1
parcels? The water pressure is already pathetic in this area and
the future widening of Seven Mile has yet to show the present
landowners where all the water will settle and drain. We
suggest you pause and come to some consensus on what the
plan is for this area. When you have one developer stating that
he will build R-3 as he moves west and another individual trying
to rezone to R-1 in that same direction, one hand does not know
what the other is doing. This leaves the present homeowners in
the area that developers are controlling the destiny of Livonia
and not the Planning Commission." The third letter is from
Robert and Sally DeKold, dated October 20, 2005, which reads
as follows: My wife, Sally, and 1 are very concemed about the
rezoning of the properties at 31700 and 31750 Seven Mile
Road. 1 have been able b obtain a sketch. There will be 26
homes to the east of us, and now 23 homes to the west of our
property is being proposed. We have a boarding kennel on this
property, and my concern is being surrounded by residential
homes on much smaller lots. 1 can wsualize having to go to
court every time a dog barks. The sketch that 1 obtained does
show a plan that could be used, but as with any design, all
options should be explored so that the final design makes the
best use of the development to the satisfaction of the City of
Livonia and all of the surrounding property owners. As I look at
this sketch, 1 wonder why it could not be a mirror image of the
Soave development. The homes on the west side of the street
could be built, and then when the homes are sold, ourproperty
could be purchased to finish the development. Leo Soave
made a statement to the Planning Commission regarding the
purchase of the lots to the west for future development. He
stated that we did not want to sell our property. This is not true!
Ourland has recently been appraised so we know its value, and
we ask for compensation for our licensed kennel business. To
obtain a kennel license in most communities is very difficult.
Yes, we would be willing to sell but have not had any written
offers. 1 realize that this does not have any bearing on the
Planning Commission's decision to approve or not to approve
the rezoning at this time, but this does have a great impact on
ourfutum." That is the extent of the conespondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questons from the Commissioners for the staff?
22726
Mr. Morrow: Well, I have a question. Did that letter indicate that Mr. Soave
told us that he had options on that property that we're looking at
tonight?
Mr. Nowak: That's whatthe letter indicates, but I believe that.. .
Mr. Morrow: I was going to say, as far as I can recall, Mr. Soave did not
indicate that he had those options, that he had tried to get them
but he did not prevail. Is that how ...
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make sure that I recalled hearing correctly that
he did not make that commitment that he had options. Thank
you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Terry Sever, Century 21, 37172 Six Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48152. I'm the
broker on the property farthest west for the Breilenbach's.
There is no option on it. There are a couple offers. My
experience has been that when you have property that needs to
be rezoned, and there's a land use surrounding it, it's best to
pursue that and let the City hold the developers feel to the fire
with regard to your ordinances. There is R-1 zoning on the
north. There is R-1 zoning on the west of this property. I
followed this. I knew this issue would come up. I came to your
meeting on a couple occasions. I went to the Council meetings
when they rezoned the property just east of here and it was an
unanimous vote to change the zoning to R-1. So, I feel that the
precedent has already been set for the north side of the street. I
heard some discussion when I was here from specifically the
Planning Commission meeting about ... and I think a couple
commissioners rightfully questioned the issue with regard to 80
foot lots. I have tried diligently to market 80 foot lots and it's
been to no avail. There is no one interested in building an 80
foollolthere.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say 80 fool lot, that would be the R-3 classification.
Mr. Sever: Right, R-3. So I have listened to what the conversation has
been. When it went to the City Council, I think many issues
were discussed and the residents ... I dont think there was any
opposition at all at the City Council meeting. I'd just like to
make a comment about the property in between, which is
referred to as the kennel. Their property is 123 feel wide. So in
the long run, at some point in time, if the Planning Commission
looks to connect the two parcels, right now what would be
22727
proposed would be two stub streets. If it's connected, the best
use is going to be the R-1 so that property can yield four lots,
two on each side of 61 or 62 feet. To do one lot on each side,
100 fool lot, 123 is probably not going to be what is going to be
the future use of that property, parliculady in the back. So what
I am asking for is, because of the land use, it's a land use issue,
its not a site plan issue, that you rezone to R-1 which is
consistent with the abutting property as well as the properly on
the north side.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. La Pine:
You mentioned that 80 fool lots are not developable or they're
not sellable.
Mr. Sever:
In fact, commissioner, I know you were the one that made
reference to the 80 foot at the last meeting, so I heard what you
said and I took that to a number of builders who would be
interested or have been building the 80 fool, and in that
particular location, they are not interested in the 80 foot since it
abuts ... many ofthe abutting properly owners are 60, 61, 62.
Mr. La Pine:
The lots on the south side of Seven Mile Road where Mr. Soave
has built, they're 80 fool lots over there on the south side of
Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Sever:
Well, I don tthink they're surrounded bythe R-1 on three sides.
Mr. La Pine:
You're only surrounded by R-1. In my opinion, as one member,
that's one reason why I didn't want to have it rezoned to R-1.
Quite frankly, I try to hold out. As I said at the time, the other
lots to the west of this eventually were going to be sold. And it
would have made more sense to wail, hold out, until we gel all
six lots and develop it as one big project in which we could
make a better development. We wouldn't have to worry about
stub streets and those types of things. And that's why I'm not in
favor of rezoning this to R-1. I'm going to be consistent with the
way that I felt on the other parcel. It doesn't make any sense.
This kennel is not going to stay because he's going to have
nothing but problems if he's surrounded by homes on both sides
of him and dogs are barking. It's going to be a nuisance and
he's going to be ticketed every time a neighbor calls. So it's to
his benefit, in my opinion, to sell the property. I don't know what
he wants to sell it for. That's between the builders and the
owner of the property, but to develop this thing in pieces, that's
what I dont like. I don't like the idea of one piece here. Oh, we
can't buy this property. And a month or two months later, we
22728
get another proposal to develop the other parcels. It doesn't
make sense tome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sever:
Can I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Alanskas:
You certain can.
Mr. Sever:
I hear what you're saying, and I know where you're coming from
in the conversation. The difference with this is two things. One,
is the owners of the property have been there for a number of
years. They have a right to sell their property now rather than
wail for either a consolidation or the kennel to sell. And I've had
some conversations with them, so I think it's unfair to hold them
up . The other thing is, I think your argument would be a good
one if it wasn't for the fact that these parcels combined are over
300 feet. The design of this development, whether its
combined or not, will not change. There will be a street going
down the middle of the two parcels and the depth, because you
have over 300, I think its 302 or something, you'll be 120, 120
and 80 for a double road right down the middle. It wont change
whether we consolidate one more acre, two more or three more
acres. And I have had conversations with the neighbors. I don't
see there being, at this point in time, any deal that would
conned the parcels. It is more realistic to believe that what's
going to happen is the connection will occur where the Planning
Commission has already looked at in the rear of 300 feel.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, tonight is only a zoning issue.
Mr. Sever:
Yes. I believe, land use and that is strictly.. .
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Sever, I think you just answered one of my questions. I just
want to make sure I understand that you are epresenting the
two property owners to get the R-1 zoning.
Mr. Sever:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And my question, which I think you just answered, that this
properly on its own can be developed as an R1 subdivision
with no variances?
Mr. Sever:
Yes. It will meet your standards.
Mr. Morrow:
As far as the size of the road and the number of lots.
Mr. Sever:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to be clear on.
22729
Mr. Sever:
And the difference in the number of lots because of layout is
three or four from one to the other.
Mr. Morrow:
Sometimes we rezone and it really can't be developed and other
things happen, but if this were a standalone, it could be
developed.
Mr. Sever:
Right. F�actiy.
Mr. Shane:
Do you have a developer standing in line to develop this
property?
Mr. Sever:
We have two or three that are interested. My experience has
been rather than tying up options contingent on rezoning, site
plan, everything, the sellers want to sell and lel you hold
whoever is going to buy it, let them ... you hold their feet to the
fire. Ifs a simple development, street down the middle, and
because of the way you have the other one, its a stub street.
Mr. Shane:
So if ifs rezoned we can expect within a few months a proposal
for a subdivision. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Sever:
If I do my job, I would think that they would be able to sell it and
you'll gel some type of proposal. Yes.
Mr.Shane:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? There's nobody? I will dose the public
hearing, and a motion is in order.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Before making a motion, if I could ask the petitioner two
questions.
Mr. Alanskas:
You certainly may.
Mr. Taormina:
With respect to the future development of the parcel to the east,
the Planning Commission, in looking at the coordination
between the development of this parcel and the remaining
parcel, would there be any objection to consideration for a
second stub street to the parcel to the east in order to provide
for a coordinated development?
22730
Mr. Sever: I assume that made the most sense. Yes.
Mr. Taormina: And secondly, have you considered how storm water would be
handled for the development of the two parcels?
Mr. Sever: No, I haven't. Because there's two houses involved, whether
they would .. I know the other parcel is doing underground, but
I don't think this would. I think this would do something else. I
think the options are there and they would meet your
requirements.
Mr. Taormina: But recognizing that it could result in a lower yield per acre if, in
fact, you have to detain the water in a surface basin.
Mr. Sever: Right. I'm going to sell it, and you're going to make them build it
to your ordinance.
Mr. Taormina: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Before we have the motion, are the owners of the kennel here
this evening? Would you please come forward? Do you have
any questions? I know we have your letter, but we'd like to hear
from you verbally.
Robert DeKold, 31670 Seven Mile Road. I am concerned because I feel like with
the sketch that I saw of this property, we're going to end up out
in the cold.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions for this gentleman?
Mr. Shane: The Planning Department has developed a sketch which shoes
how your property could be developed in conjunction with these
other parcels that we're talking about. Has anybody shown you
that sketch? It sounds like you haven't seen that one.
Mr. DeKold: No.
Mr. Shane: Mark, do you have that one?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, would you like to show it?
Mr. Shane: Yes. Now if you notice, the loop road, the one on the right, is
the parcel which was just rezoned recently, and the loop that
goes on the left is the parcel that we're talking about tonight,
and the one in the middle is you.
Mr. DeKold: I did see this.
22731
Mr. Shane:
If it were developed in that manner, it's probably the best way
that we could see that your property could be combined with
these other two in the future. Do you see what I'm saying?
Mr. DeKold:
As I stated in my letter, if you took Leo Soave's layout there, his
site plan, and did a mirror image, that seems like that would be
the best use of our property.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's what you're seeing practically.
Mr. DeKold:
No. I said using my property line to the east. You look Leo's
property and did a mirror image. Do you knov whatthal is?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Of course.
Ms. Smiley:
Using three lots.
Mr. DeKold:
That would be the best use of the property. And I also stated
that if you did that, you'd have the boulevard and then you
would be able to develop those west lots and then eventually
buy my property to create this.
Mr. Alanskas:
Lel me ask you a question. Has Mr. Terry Sever or Mr. Soave
approached you in regards to buying your property?
Mr. DeKold:
It has all been verbal, and that doesn't mean anything to me.
Mr. Alanskas:
But they have approached you?
Mr. DeKold:
They've talked to me, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Sever:
If you put the site plan back up there. I love it. And if I could
accomplish that, I will do everything I can if you rezone this, and
you'll notice that on the north part of his property, you show the
ability to have four lots. Without R7, he cannot achieve that.
Secondly, I have spoken with him and if we could come to terns
on the number, I will do everything I can as a real estate broker
to try to make that deal work. But as you know, sometimes,
well, what the developers need as a yield in the number of units
and cost and all that, but I will make a commitment to you. I
have spoken to them on a number of occasions. If I could
facilitate that and make that work, whether it be what he's
referring to as a flip of the other property, or this one with the
cul-de-sac. I will do everything I can to make that happen.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
22732
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Sever, maybe this is more appropriate to the property owner
or maybe going to his letter. I get the feeling that he wants to
sell his land plus the kennel. And I'm assuming that you're not
interested in going in the kennel business. That seems to be
why the two parties can't gel together.
Mr. Sever:
Yeah, he has a number in mind that includes his business,
which is fair. If I could make it work, I will make it work. I know I
don't want to gel into site plan issues tonight, but however, it
would yield, I think that makes sense.
Mr. Morrow:
That's got to be a certain relevant part to it that I think it's fair to
explore. So at least should tie zoning prevail, there is a way to
make sure that it is not a piece of properly that cannot be
developed.
Mr. Sever:
I know this much. If I can't get 1-1, I doubt very much that piece
could be included because it's not going to work with 120 foot
width.
Mr. Morrow:
And as the Planning Director said, there is still concerns about
sewers as far as underground or laking up some sort of
detention basin. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, would you put up that plan again? My question is, if this
was developed like
you have planned over there, would that
mean the two lots on Seven Mile Road facing south would be
two driveways, one for each parcel?
Mr. Taormina:
There would be no other way to access it.
Mr. La Pine:
So we're going to have four driveways along Seven Mile Road.
Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not necessarily. The other ones could take their access
from the side streets.
Mr. La Pine:
You have the entrance here on Soave's property. You've got
the entrance over here at the east, and then you've got the lot in
the middle.
Mr. Taormina:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
There's two lots. The only way you can get into those two lots
would be off of Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Taormina:
Right. Two, not four.
22733
Mr. LaPine:
Each one would have to have a driveway.
Mr. Taormina:
Those two, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
So you have four driveways off Seven Mile Road, which I doubt
very much ...
Mr. Morrow:
You have two driveways and two roads.
Mr. Taormina:
Oh, I'm sorry. I understand.
Mr. LaPine:
I doubt very much if Wayne County would allow R.
Mr. Sever:
I looked at this and actually what I think happened when I saw it
from a distance, where it says 'future development," those two
lots, I think that's probably where you would put the detention.
The layout as designed here doesn't show where detention
would go, but if we went this way, I personally believe that the
detention would probably go there to eliminate those two
accesses.
Mr. LaPine:
Out on Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Sever:
Yes. I think that's how it would come about. I played with the
design. I'm not an engineer, expert. The land looks pretty flat
and you have some altematives as far as retention, but the
design does not ... see, on the right? Soave's property is
underground detention, so that doesn't show. On our property,
we would have to facilitate for retention which would most likely
be above ground, open or buried with a park, but I think that's
where it would go.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Sever, are you in a big hurry to have this rezoned?
Mr. Sever: Yes. I've been working on this and the sellers are anxious to
sell. They have their own timeframe with regard to it. It's been
real difficult to be aggressive with it because of the issues. It
would be very helpful to get the 1-1, and I would ask you to do
that, especially in light of the fad that the Council voted
unanimously on the other parcel, and at that meeting there was
no objection to it. So I think it's fair to move this along. It will be
helpful to move forward rather than wail. I'll never get
everybody together again as far as getting to this point.
Mr. Alanskas: The public hearing is closed. A mofion is now in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, ilwas
22734
#10-107-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heading having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-01-11 submitted by Terry Sever, on behalf of
Harvey and Jewell Harris and John and Diane Breilenbach,
requesting to rezone the properties at 31700 and 31750 Seven
Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the
Southeast 114 of Section 3 from RUFB to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2005-09-01-11 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with the lots in the immediately
adjacent subdivision to the north and west;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential developments similar in density to what
exists in the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land use in this general area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent land to the north and west.
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 vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Smiley, Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas
NAYES: LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
22735
ITEM #3 PETITION 2005-09-0142 AFRAM SABBAGH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-01-12
00509-01-12 submitted by Afram Sabbagh requesting to rezone
property at 16800 Middlebelt, located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Six Mile Road and Grove Avenue in
the Northwest % of Section 13 from RUF to OS.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division dated September 27, 2005, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The legal description as provided
is incomplete and the following description should be used. No
additional right-of-way is required. Storm water detention
facilities will be required in accordance with Wayne County's
storm water management ordinance. The street approach to
Middlebelt Road will require a permit from Wayne County." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is
the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Afmm Sabbagh, 15333 Hix, Livonia, Michigan 48154. 1 am requesting a change
of zoning from residential to OS. My plan is to build a one-stop
real estate office center consisting of approximately 8,000
square feel, which is the identical size to the properly adjacent
to the north, that's the address of 16880. It has a similar lot
size. That particular property is, according to public records, 82
by 466. As you can see, it's very close. I'd like to use the
existing building the way it is for the next one to two years for
real estate. In the meantime, plan and submit plans to the city
according to the larger office center. The future plan for the city,
as Mr. Taormina stated, is OS. This would be consistent with
the future plan of the city. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Do you own this lot?
Mr. Sabbagh: Yes, Ido.
22736
Mr. Piemecchi:
Is it your intention to domino effect all the way down ... put that
back on the board. Will you, Mark? OS may be proper there. I
dont question that, but one of our commissioners pointed out at
the study meeting, we're going piecemeal here. It would be
better if the whole area south to Grove were rezoned OS. He
pointed out one major building being there, and as far as a real
estate office, that's a waiver use in the OS. That is much more
restrictive when you need a waiver use. There's certain areas
where it's difficult to get it. But are you malting any attempts to
go further?
Mr. Sabbagh:
No. As a matter of fact, approximately two years ago I was
made an offer by a land developer to sell the property, and one
of the five homeowners did not want to sell. So that plan was
abolished because that one person, I'm not sure which one it
was, did not want to sell. So apparently hat particular owner
does not want to move. I dont think that's possible at this time,
but I would certainly pursue that if that was possible.
Mr. Piemecchi:
Coming from one point of view, sir, it doesn't seem to make
sense. If we get your lot up, and the next guy sells out and we
gel six or seven little offices there, it would be much better if we
had a more comprehensive plan for that area. That's why I'm
very reluctant to support this.
Mr. Sabbagh:
I understand. As I said, the only holdup on that was that one
particular landowner. I believe someone in the audience
tonight, one of the neighbors, knows which particular property
owner it was, but there was one that wouldn't move, so I don't
know if that's feasible at this point.
Mr. Alanskas:
You say that you want to just leave the house there and work
out of the house for two years. Why is that?
Mr. Sabbagh:
One to two years, to get bids and plans submitted to the city to
be approved by the city as far as the plan, as far as the square
footage and the parking, etc.
Mr. Alanskas:
Dont you think it would have been better for you to come before
us to show us exactly what you want to do if it was going to be
rezoned to OS instead of saying, here, I just want to stay in the
house for two years?
Mr. Sabbagh:
My intention at this point is just to see if that would be approved,
and if that's so, I would be glad to submit the ... if you'd like, we
could table this. I'd be glad to gel bids and submit them for
approval, and at that point, if you want to do that, then we can
go that way.
22737
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, like some people are saying this evening, they would
rather see all those parcels done at one time to get one big
good plan than do it piecemeal by piecemeal.
Mr. Morrow:
This is kind of a question that is purely conjecture at this point,
but let's say that it was rezoned and you made application to
operate a business out of that home. As you heard tonight, you
would have to comply with Wayne County's water restricted
area, either a retention pond or retention in the sewer. Would
that be required of him assuming that it is going to be an office
building?
Mr. Taormina:
That would depend on the extent of the improvements. If you're
talking about just converting the existing house for use as an
office temporarily, and provided only a small parking area is
needed in connection with that business use, then it may not
trigger the need to provide storm water detention in compliance
with the county's standards. However, if let's say a larger
parking area is provided for the site and the building is
expanded in any way, then there is that possibility that they will
have to comply with the county. Certainly when the site is
developed and the house is removed and a new commercial
building is constructed in its place, then they would have to fully
comply with all the county's standards related to storm water
management.
Mr. Morrow:
But who would make that determination? If this should prevail,
and I'm not trying to give an indication that it would, if it should
prevail, who would make the determination if he can operate as
is?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be a combination of our Engineering and Building
Departments in cooperation with Wayne County. There are
other issues related to the use of the existing structure for
business purposes that he would have to find out about and see
whether or not it's even possible because there's a host of other
code requirements that may make that type of venture
economically unfeasible.
Mr. Morrow:
Ilwould preclude the use as it is?
Mr. Taormina:
It may.
Mr. Morrow:
It could. Just letting you know some of the things you may be
faced with should this prevail as you outlined it. But that's all I
wanted to clear up.
22738
Mr. La Pine:
Sir, I have to agree with Mr. Piercecchi. I believe this should be
developed as one big large parcel. When you realize these lots
are approximately 80 feet wide by 450 feet deep, that's a pretty
good size parcel. We just had a discussion about the retention
basins. If each lot was developed individually, you'd have five
retention basis. This way if it is developed as one big project,
you've got one big retention basin. You can do a lot more with
R. You've got a lot of depth in the properly. Your panting can
be in the back. There's a lot of potential. It seems to me not too
many people want to buy and live in homes on Middlebell Road.
Basically, that whole area, until you gel to Grove where the
homes are, is going to be in the OS classification. I personally
would rather see you try to pursue the person who doesn't want
to sell, buy the lands and develop a nice building there. I think it
would be an asset to the City, an asset to you or whoever owns
the property. I have no objection to OS, but I don't want to
develop each one of these separately. Once we give you the
OS, say the next guy nothing happens. And then we skip a lot
and we've got another OS, then we're at the point where we
can tgel ildeveloped as all one project.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think what Mr. LaPine is saying is that its not good planning by
us or by you to do just one piece at a time. Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Maxine Raupp,
16790 Middlebelt Road. I've lived here since 1959.
Mr. Alanskas:
Oh, you just got there?
Ms. Raupp:
I just got there, and if you want any history about what goes on
in the neighborhood, I can tell you. I am the property south of
the one being proposed for office. I'd really like to see it be
proposed commercial and the reason why is because Middlebell
is a high traffic area. We have a lot of offices in Livonia, and
they are not well occupied because of the status of these
offices. Some of them are very much mildewy as you walk in
the door. Some of them are looking for somebody to come in
for 15 years and rebuild their office for them because I have
personally looked at some of these, and they're asking a very
high rental price in Livonia, as much as $26.00 a square foot,
which is pretty high, plus the outside stuff to take care of around
it. Commercial, that's more likely. The person to my south has
the impression or tells those people the next two lots, that this
has to be sold as residential or else you can't get any money out
of it. I have talked to these people and said, that's isn't true.
The best price or the dollar amount that you'll get for your
property would be commercial, or office or development, not to
sell it as a residential because they're all very small, old homes
22739
and they really are inconsistent with what's going on from Six
Mile to Five Mile as to what is happening on Middlebelt. On
Middlebelt we have strip malls that have everything from
insurance companies to salons to tanning booths to dentistry to
medical to restaurants to salons of all natures, attorney offices.
All in these commercial strip malls. Now this is an interesting
feature because of the fact, what's happening to our business
line in the future, and the future wave is not big industry, like
Wal -Marl. And I really applaud you for allowing Wal-Mart to
come in where you have them on Wonderland. That is a really
good process for us, and we need the jobs and we need that
shopping mall. A lot of our shopping malls aren't doing well.
This will be a real incentive and a big employment thing. What
we're having here, though, from Five Mile to Six Mile, I really
believe is what the wave of the future is because it seems to be
working. You may have an insurance office selling car insurance
or you may have a health agency. You may have PT. All down
Middlebelt there is a combination that seems to work and it's
kind of done it on it's own. People say this looks like what I can
use. You can do PT or you can do a workout gym like Fitzone
for workout for health care. You can have a doctor. You have it
all. You have real estate offices, print shops. You have the 7-
11, a funeral home. It's all there and its working and it seems
like this is the wave of the future with small shops with
personalized services and businesses and products to work and
serve our community. We're not going to have GM's around. It
looks like a lot of that's going out and a lot of jobs are being
serviced out to other countries. So we really have in our little
section here a lot of independent business people who are
making a Iivi ng and providing jobs. There's even staffing jobs.
Mr. Alanskas: You have two more minutes
Ms. Raupp: Oh, okay. Now, the other thing I want to tell you about
Middlebelt, is that we are centralized between 96, 696, 94. We
have all these freeways. We are a main drag from down in the
Taylor area, the industry, all the way to north of Orchard Lake.
This is a one -shop five lane drive. We have Highway 14. We
have highway 275. What happens is, that this is one of the only
streets, other than Plymouth Road, that has five or six lanes and
a straight shot from Ann Arbor to Detroit, from way up in the
northern part of West Bloomfield and that area coming all the
way down to the industries. What happens when the freeways
have all the orange barrels? Middlebelt catches it all. I'm
talking about midnight, there are cars running down that street
every three to five minutes. There s not a hour of the day that
we don't have cars and trucks going down there. And I think
that we are inconsistent being Rural Urban Farm for the whole
22740
area of Middlebell from Five Mile to Six Mile. We are the
inconsistency. We need to have this changed. And I do know
that even the church behind has a softening idea of wanting to
sell the land there. There is a lot that can be done here, wisely
done. But I don't think office is really the place. I know it's being
zoned for office, but since '59, it has been zoned for
commercial, office, multiple Irving, apartments and rural urban
Tann.
Mr. Alanskas: So what you are saying is thatyou are against the OS?
Ms. Raupp: I am not really against ... I'm against not having it changed and
rezoned.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you for coming in and thank you for the input.
Mr. Morrow: You say you are the properly owner immediately to the south?
Ms. Raupp: Yes. And the property owner next to me is the one who has
kept the property from developing over the last 40 years.
Literally.
Mr. Morrow: And they think there's more value in residential than some other
higher dassifcation?
Ms. Raupp: She thinks that it has more value.
Mr. Morrow: To sell it as residential as opposed to some sort of office or
commercial?
Ms. Raupp: Right. And she's convinced the next two people that's the only
way it will work.
Mr. Morrow: That's generally not the way it works.
Ms. Raupp: I know. May I have her talk to you?
Mr. Morrow: I do not purport myself as a real estate person
Ms. Raupp: I'll tell you something. At one point in time we had a man come
down the street and offer us over $300,000 br each one of our
parcels, and she said her parcel was worth over $500,000. She
wasn't going to lel it happen. And she didn't.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you for coming in.
Laurie Kron, 2916699 Grove. I just moved into the neighborhood and the reason
I did move over there was because it was rural. I am opposed
22741
to having strip malls and office in that area. I came over here
for a better quality life because of the rural urban area, so I am
very much opposed to having that rezoned.
Mr. Morrow: Which lot are you, ma'am?
Ms. Kron: Its a very small lot. The smallest one on the other side.
Mr. Morrow: Would that be like the fifth one in?
Ms. Kron:
Yes, the fifth one in. Correct. My problem is, I am, like you said
a little afraid there's going to be a domino effect on Middlebelt
and everybody is going to be selling and we're going to have a
little strip mall there and traffic and garbage and noise. That's
what I'm concerned about.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I think our Master Plan shows office, does it not? What
does the Master Plan indicate?
Mr. Taormina:
The parcel that we're reviewing is located right here.
Mr. Morrow:
But the Master Plan indicates office. Is that what it indicates?
Mr. Taormina:
It shows the westerly 260 feet, or thereabout, as office.
Mr. Morrow:
But all the way down to Grove is .. the Future Land Use Plan is
to...
Mr. Taormina:
You can see. This is Grove here and the office land use
classification begins on the north side of Grove and extends all
the way up to here.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to make sure you understood that our Future Land
Use Plan, if it were developed, that office does agree with what
we're striving for. Our concern here tonight is that we're trying
to work in larger parcels.
Ms. Kron:
I wasn't aware of that when I did move in or I wouldn't have
moved there.
Mr. Morrow:
That's why I wanted to at least make you aware of it although
you are not immediately adjacent to it. You are removed from it,
but we respect your concem.
Ms. Kron:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would the petitioner like to make any last remarks?
22742
Mr. Sabbagh: I would like to, if I could, table this and see if I can talk to the
remaining landowners and see if they would have a change of
heart to see if we can combine it all into one zoning. I know that
Maxine is very much for it, but I just want to talk to the one
owner who is opposed to 8.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. A motion is
in order.
Mr. Morrow: I will respect the petitioner's requestthat this be tabled.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#10-108-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-01-12 submitted by Afmm Sabbagh requesting
to rezone properly at 16800 Middlebelt, located on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Six Mile Road and Grove Avenue
in the Northwest % of Section 13 from RUF to OS, City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 200509-01-
12 be tabled.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Smiley
NAYES: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2005-09-0143 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-01-13,
00509-01-13, submitted by Schoolcmft Commons, LLC. requesting
to rezone a portion of the property at College Park, located on
the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and
Seven Mile Road in the Southwest %of Section 7 from PO to G2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 26, 2005, which
22743
reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal
description should be used in connection with the rezoning."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The next item is from Schoolcraft College, dated September 26,
2005, which reads as follows: `Schoolcraft College has an
agreement with Schoolcraft Commons, LLC (Marvin Walkon
and Douglas M. Elkin, Partners and Principals) to lease and
develop the above -referenced property. In that regard, this will
serve to confirm that Schoolcraft College consents and agrees
to the request for rezoning as submitted by Schoolcraft
Commons, LLC as outlined in their September 23, 2005, letter."
The letter is signed by Jill F. O'Sullivan, Vice President and
EFO, Schoolcraft College. The next dem is from the petitioners
dated September 23, 2005, which reads as follows: We, the
undersigned, are hereby requesting the rezoning of the subject
property which is depicted on the attached Survey and Master
Plan. The purpose of the rezoning request is to provide for an
expansion of the existing adjacent C-2 zoning to accommodate
a proposed free-standing high quality steakhouse restaurant at
the College Park Campus. We believe the requested rezoning
is appropriate to ensure the highest and best use of the property
and is in keeping with the existing character and uses of the
surrounding neighborhoods." The letter was signed by Marvin
Walkon and Douglas M. Etkin, Principals of Schoolcraft
Commons, LLC. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas Are there any questions from the Commissioners for stair?
Ms. Smiley: Why is it such an odd shape?
Mr. Taormina: A portion for the proposed zoning boundary that runs along the
north and easterly portion of the property is because that runs
generally coterminous with the south side of the existing stream
that travels from a northwest to the southeast direction. I think
Mr. Wineman probably has some additional information that will
show you why those boundaries are described as they are.
Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner please give us your name and address?
Robert Wneman, Walkon-Etkin Partnership, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite
200, Southfield, Michigan 48034.
Mr. La Pine: I'm a little confused here. Are we hearing tonight the
restaurant? I thought we were hearing the bank. The
restaurant? Okay.
22744
Mr. Wneman:
Mr. LaPine, I can respond to that. We're here for the rezoning
request. This is related specifically to the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Wneman:
Subsequent to this meeting, we will be in front of you for both
site plan approval for the bank as well as the restaurant that
we're talking about
Mr. LaPine:
Fine. Okay. I have no problem.
Mr. Wireman:
To answer Mrs. Smileys question, there is watercourse that
does ran, as you can see, this is Haggerty Road, through the
property. It does bisect the property. The intent was, as Mr.
Taormina indicated, to carve out this portion of the
development, which has already been improved related to the
Phase I activities that we have existing today, and then also to
accommodate the restaurant pad, which is this area here.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you tell us a little bit about the restaurant that )a want to
put in there?
Mr. Wneman:
The restaurant that we're talking to is an upscale dinner only
establishment. The name of the company is Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse. They are based in Newport Beach, California.
They have been looking to expand their presence in Michigan
for some time. Ironically, about two years ago we talked to
them about this site. I think they wished they had done
something at that time as opposed to now. But they are very
excited about the opportunity to be here and we're eecited to
have them.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have one question. Its kind of a loaded question to you or Mr.
Walkon. With this rezoning, are there any future plans for any
other restaurants on this entire site?
Mr. Wneman:
No, is the answer to that question. We do not anticipate that to
be the case.
Mr. Alanskas:
This is the end of the restaurants?
Mr. Wneman:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The restaurant will be the last commercial development here.
Everything else from here on out will be offices. Is that cored?
22745
Mr. Wneman:
Correct. That's consistent with the master plan that we have in
place.
Mr. La Pine:
Show me where the parking is going to be for the restaurant and
how many parking spaces you're allowing for the restaurant.
Mr. Wneman:
We'll get into some more detail when we submit for our site
plan, but in a general sense, I can tell you the intention is for the
restaurant specifically to be utilizing obviously the area that
surrounds it, as well as the overflow area, which we
conceptually tend to make the valet area for what will be all four
restaurants, and then of course there will be some overflow
back in this area as well. We believe with what you see here,
and again, we'll get into some more detail at a later date, that
we have more than adequate parking to accommodate both the
restaurant and a proposed give or take about 15,500 square
foot single storyoffice building.
Ms. Smiley:
Did l understand you to say they do dinner only?
Mr. Wneman:
Currently their format is dinner only. That's cortect.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
So their hours would be limited.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, I would assume that because you're doing such a great
business with the other three, if the business is there, they
would open up for lunch.
Mr. Wneman:
That is a possibility but l can tell you ...
Mr. La Pine:
I have no objection to that. Steak is good at lunch.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I asked about future restaurants is because I had
the pleasure to go to a cheesecake factory. Let me tell you, it
had 536 seals. So that is a large restaurant. And the place
does a fantastic business. So put that in the back of your head,
Mr. Walkon. Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience
that wants to speak for or against this petition? Any Iasi
remarks from the petitioner?
Mr. Wneman:
No. We thank you for your consideration.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-109-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
22746
Petition 2005-09-01-13, submitted by Schoolcratt Commons,
LLC. requesting to rezone a portion of the property at College
Park, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section
7 from PO to C-2, City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-09-01-13 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
type of development that has occurred along the 496/1-275
Freeway corridor and with existing and proposed
development within College Park;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute an
expansion of an existing adjacenlzoning disbict;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will alloy for uses that
will be complementary to the overall concept for College
Park;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
spirit of the Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the
Freeway corridor and vicinity.
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. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Should this be approved at the Council level, what is your
timeframe for bringing Fleming's into existence? Do you have
any sense of that?
Mr. Wineman: As soon as possible.
Mr. Morrow: What would that mean?
Mr. Wneman: I think realistically given the process that we need to go through
here, that we would be starting construction sometime in March
with the potential for them to be open in the summer.
Mr. Morrow: The target is summer of next year then? Thank you.
22747
Mr. Shane: I just want to say that I'm excited about the restaurant, but I just
want to make sure that Mr. Walkon, etc., are aware that in no
way would I approve any more commercial zoning on this site
because in order to maintain the Master Plan, I would not like to
see any additional commeroial development.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Y 1 =I Ai Ei]",M 9 =k I Y Ole] 7 DAD1Z11:E1YA5 [-�] h'd Ti PIRA]:I ` IK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
08-02-16,
00508-02-16, submitted by JCD Group, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full service restaurant (Jimmy John's
Gourmet Sandwiches) with dine -in, take out and delivery service
in the Fountain Park Development, on property located on the
north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and
Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest%of Section 27.
Mr. Taormina presented a map shaving the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated September 27, 2005,
revised, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refsrenced
petition. We have no objections to the revised proposal at this
time. The legal description provided by this office should be
used in connection with the waiver use. The description
includes the outdoor seating area. The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 13,
2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full
service restaurant with dine -in, takeout and delivery service on
property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest % of
Section. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. There is also an
additional letter in connection with outdoor sealing from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 30, 2005,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the references
plans reflecting proposed outdoor seating for Jimmy Johns
Gourmet Sandwiches. We have no objections to the submitted
22748
additional plans." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker,
Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police,
dated September 30, 2005, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Jimmy
John's located at 33314 Plymouth Road. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
September 16, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of September 1, 2005, he above- eferenced petition
has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. Also, there is a revised letter from the
Inspection Department, dated October 5, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 28, 2005, the
above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The outdoor seating must not block handicapped
accessibility nor block egress from the building. The egress
should be maintained at 44 inches wide minimum and the
sidewalk should be clear for a 5 foot depth. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions to the staff?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, you mentioned that the landscape plan for this
project proposed some planter boxes along the walkway.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Shane:
You're satisfied that they would not interfere with the outdoor
sealing?
Mr. Taormina:
That is cored. We did review the plan, and I apologize
because I know we have a copy of the latest plan showing those
planters boxes but they would be positioned in this general
area. Looking at the site plan, these are the two retail buildings
that are curently under construction. This is the unit at the east
end of that building where Jimmy John's would be located. The
planter boxes are going to be located roughly in this area and
will not interfere with the outdoor seating area of Jimmy John's,
which is going to be positioned right directly in front of their
storefront.
Mr. Alanskas:
How will they be watered? Manually?
22749
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know the answer to that. I'm not sure if they'll have an
automatic irrigation system installed or not.
Mr. Alanskas:
They wouldn'tjust for planter boxes.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know that.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
How are we doing with the parking?
Mr. Taormina:
We also looked at that. Following the study meeting, twas
determined there is adequate parking on this site. When we
reviewed this development initially, it was based on parking for a
group commercial center at a ratio of one parking space for
every 125 square feet of lease area. As this site is developed,
we recalculated those numbers each time to account for, in
some cases, larger buildings or a slight variation in the design.
As it stands today, there is a surplus of approximately nine
parking spaces. So there is surplus parking still available for
this development when you take into account all the combined
parking for all the uses.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Cheryl Doelker,
19369 Faidane Court, Livonia, Michigan 48152. This is our
second location. We're excited to be able to do that. Basically,
we're just asking for the approval
to go ahead with seating. The
property is already G2. It
is my understanding that all we really
need is the approval for seating to move forward with our plan.
Mr. LaPine:
The developer is not here. Mr. Jonna, is that whos developing
this properly?
Ms. Doelker:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
He's not here this evening?
Ms. Doelker:
I dont believe he is, no.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask Mark. To the east of this, the two buildings marked
'future," is that parcel owned by Jonna, loo, to the best of your
knowledge?
Mr. Taormina:
You're refering to this area. This is the remaining vacant portion
of the commercial development. It was my understanding that
Mr. Jonna did have certain rights or options on this land. Now,
22750
Ms. Doelker: Probably about 20%.
Mr. LaPine: The only question I have is, I want to question Mr. Jonna about
some of the tenants he's putting here, which we have no conld
over. But this isn't what I envisioned he was going to put in
there, although I have nothing against your restaurant. You
have a nice operation.
Ms. Doelker: Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Just to clear up what you said eadier. What you're seeking
tonight is a waiver for the full service restaurant dictated by the
number of seats you have. So ifs a waiver of use within the C-2,
which will allow you to operate your restaurant.
Ms. Doelker: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Ok.
whether or not he's exercised those rights and now owns them,
I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. LaPine:
To the best of your knowledge, are those two restaurants what
he originally planned here?
Mr. Taormina:
They were targeted to be restaurants under the original plan,
two separate restaurants. I think while the restaurant use is sti l
feasible for that area, it is being discussed. The question
remains as to whether or not it has the capacity to
accommodate two restaurants as opposed to possibly a single
restaurant.
Mr. LaPine:
What are the hours your restaurant is going to be open?
Ms. Doelker:
From 10:00 in the morning to 9:00 in the evening.
Mr. LaPine:
Seven days a week?
Ms. Doelker:
Seven days. Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
You serve breakfastrightthrough dinner. Islhalcorrect?
Ms. Doelker:
No breakfast. Predominantly the menu is conducive to
lunchtime. We do about two-thirds of our business at our
current location at lunchtime, the other third at night.
Mr. La Pine:
How much ofyourbusiness is carryout?
Ms. Doelker: Probably about 20%.
Mr. LaPine: The only question I have is, I want to question Mr. Jonna about
some of the tenants he's putting here, which we have no conld
over. But this isn't what I envisioned he was going to put in
there, although I have nothing against your restaurant. You
have a nice operation.
Ms. Doelker: Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Just to clear up what you said eadier. What you're seeking
tonight is a waiver for the full service restaurant dictated by the
number of seats you have. So ifs a waiver of use within the C-2,
which will allow you to operate your restaurant.
Ms. Doelker: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Ok.
22751
Ms. Doelker: I may have misstated that.
Mr. Morrow: Well, I wanted to make sure you understood it was waiver use
and you weren't here just to get permission to put so many
seats in it.
Ms. Doelker: I understand.
Mr. Morrow: You're getfing a full service restaurant waiver.
Ms. Doelker: Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple questions. In regards to your outdoor seating,
how is that patrolled in regards to refuse?
Ms. Doelker: We anticipate our staff maintaining the tables that we put out
front. The question that I have is whether or not other
restaurants will go in there and also do outdoor sealing. I'd
certainly love to be able to manage and control by own seats
being that it will be my expense and it's in the lease approved
by Mr. Jonna that I could do that as long as we look care of
keeping it clean, and we will.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you have a refuse container on the sidewalk or will you take
the trash inside?
Ms. Doelker: We can put one on the sidewalk.
Mr. Alanskas: Pardon me?
Ms. Doelker: We could put one on the sidewalk if that will make it more
manageable.
Mr. Alanskas: And my second questions is, do you have any plans for having
outside speakers forlhe outside patio?
Ms. Doelker: Not atthistime.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Raymond Grix, 11716 Farmington Road. I am a resident of the Fountain Park
condominium complex, and also at present the President of the
Board of Directors for the homeowners association. I'm
addressing the hours that I have no problem with. My primary
question being in building #2 of the Fountain Park complex, we
are immediately behind the retail development and the primary
22752
concem would be the hours of delivery to any of the businesses
in there. Will this be during your normal business hours?
Mr. Alanskas:
Would you please state your question to the Board?
Mr. Grix:
Okay. Asking about the delivery hours for the businesses in
those buildings, specifically, you know, not wanting to have
deliveries at 5:30, 6:00 in the morning.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. We'll get that answered for you. Mark, don't we have a
fairly good buffer between the road and the residents?
Mr. Taormina:
There is a landscaped greenbelt at the rear of the buildings and
parking as well as a driveway in the front yard of those
buildings. This petitioner can only respond
with respect to the
hours of operation and deliveries of their
business. I can't recall
if we imposed any restrictions on delivery hours in connection
with the site pan, but through the Chair, I'll allow the petitioner
to respond to his concern regarding hours of deliveries for this
business.
Mr. Alanskas:
I don't think we did. Would you please answer that question for
us?
Ms. Doelker:
At our current restaurant located on Six Mile, we get our food
deliveries once a week. They come from Norman Food
Company out of Battle Creek, Michigan, and they arrive at our
store anytime between 8:00 in the morning and 3:00 in the
aRemoon, with the exception that they can't deliver to us during
lunchtime. Additionally, we have produce deliveries every
single day, Monday through Saturday, not Sunday, those arrive
in the morning from 8:00 until 12:00 noon.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now, these trucks, are they large trucks or small trucks?
Ms. Doelker:
The trucks from Norman Foods are the bigger of the two. I'm
not a truck expert, but it's probably about the size of a large
Rydertruck.
Mr. Alanskas:
And when they make your deliveries, do they shut their engines
off?
Ms. Doelker:
Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
Theydo? Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. Grix:
Yes. I do believe. Addressing the question about a stipulation
on delivery hours in the site plan, I was here at that meeting and
22753
I believe Mr. Jonna did indicate that he would do everything
possible to make it 8:00 a.m. at the earliest. That again is a
concern. If I may ask the queston, is the Commission presently
aware of any other tenants for those buildings or have any ...
Mr. Alanskas:
No, we're not.
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, we are.
Mr. Alanskas:
We are?
Mr. La Pine:
On the list here, if these are correct. Are these correct Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I cannot confirm that.
Mr. Alanskas:
While you're up here, I have one question for you. What
percent ofthe residential is filled now?
Mr. Grix:
It is completely filled.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's 100% filled?
Mr. Grix:
There are two units that are being retained by the developer, but
the rest of the complex is currently fully occupied. Again, we're
concerned about the greenbelt being at the back of the property.
I noticed that the property, as it's being constructed now, has
doors that are apparently going to exit out onto the buffer road
between the condominium complex and the businesses.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, didn't we also ask in our approving if some of these shops
could have their truck deliveries made in the front of the
building?
Mr. Taormina:
That may have been discussed at the meetings. I dont believe
that was incorporated into the approving resolution.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, sir, for coming in.
Mr. Morrow:
Sir, we appreciate your comments because as these
businesses come in, we'll be mindful of your concem about
deliveries.
Mr. Grix:
Okay. Again, I'm not only represenfing myself but also as
President of the condominium board.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else? I will dose the
public hearing, and a motion is in order.
22754
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-110-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-08-02-16, submitted by JCD Group, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant (Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches) with dine -in,
take out and delivery service in the Fountain Park Development,
on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 27, City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200508-02-
16 be approved subject to the following conditions
1. That the Store Layout Plan submitted by JCD, Inc., dated
August 19, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That the Outdoor Seating Plan submitted by JCD, Inc.,
received by the Planning Commission on September 27,
2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with the
outdoor sealing being confined to portions of the sidewalk
directly in front of the subject restaurant unit as shown on
the plan;
3. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 53 seats, including 44 seats inside the building and
9 outdoor seats;
4. That the petitioner shall comply with the following
stipulations in the correspondence dated October 5, 2005
from the Inspection Department;
• The outdoor seating must not block handicapped
accessibility nor block egress from the building; the
egress should be maintained at 44 inches wide
minimum and the sidewalk should be clear for a 5 fool
depth;
5. That a trash receptacle shall be provided for the outdoor
dining area and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
22755
7. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
8. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding condifions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That tie proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2005-09-0247 JAVA J07
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-02-17
00509-02-17 submitted by MRM Company, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a drive through
restaurant (Java Jo'z) in the Woodland Square shopping center,
on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast % of
Section 26.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence for the record?
22756
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 26, 2005, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. The following the
legal description should be used in connection with the waiver
use." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated September 21, 2005, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to operate a drive-thru restaurant on property
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt
Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast % of Section 26. We
have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated September 30, 2005, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal by Java Joi located at 30200 Plymouth Road. We
have no objections or recommendations to the plans as
submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Stuck, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 7, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 19, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The signage pictures appear to be excessive. This would be
allowed one wall sign with square footage not to exceed lineal
feet of frontage. Anything else would require a grant from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) This center required 559 parking
spaces and they state 565 are provided. It appears that 28
spaces would be required to be abandoned or made not usable,
thus resulting in a shortage of 22 spaces. This would require a
parking variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) This
plan does not show the required off street standing area for no
less than 20 vehicles. Council may waive this requirement with
a super majority vote. (4) The Planning Commission may
approve this commercial structure of 192 square feet, which is
less than the minimum 400 square feet This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dan LaClair,
Alpine Engineering Inc., 46892 West Road, Suite 109, Novi,
Michigan 48377. I'm here to night with Steve and Margaret
22757
Mahoney. They are the franchisees for the proposed Java Jo'z
drive-thm coffee restaurant. This is the first of several that
theyre looking at opening up in southeast Michigan. Java Jo'z
is a national coffee retailer and the pictures that you have seen
here tonight are representafive of their coffee stations across
the country. They have coffee stations in Florida, Texas,
Indiana, North Carolina, and this is the startup in Michigan here
that Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney would like to do. Their operation
here will be primarily early a.m., opening up early in the
morning, going through lunchfime, and it may vary, depending
how their success is, with whether they stay open through the
dinner and how far past the dinner hour. They've been looking
for several months for sites in southeast Michigan, and this
particular site happens to be one that they came upon which
suited them in a way that i also suited the other tenants in the
development. They've been working with the owner of the
property, the developer. The developer, through their lease
agreement, has also gone to each of the tenants, and the other
tenants within the development are very happy to see them
come here. They're looking for additional ways to bring traffic to
this center. So theyve been successful and they've got the
positive enforcement from all the other tenants with this. What
we're proposing to do is utilize a couple of the parking spaces
within the existing parking lot for this facility. The parking lot is
currenfly lit. There is also some additional lighting on the
building itself that will shine down in the immediate area of the
building. One of the things I noficed, and even today I was out
on the site, and there were 35 cars within this development of
500 parking spaces. I want to make it noted that with the
positive assurance from each of these tenants, they feel that
eliminating the parking spaces is not going to hinder their ability
to do business in this development. In other words, they feel
this development may be over -parked a little bit. It was with that
that we got the positive recommendation and reinforcement
from the tenants. As far as the operation itself, Mr. And Mrs.
Mahoney can get into the daily operation a little bit if you have
any questions. The on-site trash, obviously there is no sit down
sealing here. It's strictly a drive -up operation. The trash will be
held within the building itself and then be carried to the
dumpsler areas within the overall development which is behind
the building. As far as the parking or the stacking, Java Jo'z
has through their corporate operations given us some given
indicafion through all of their other restaurants across the
country, as many as four to five stacking spaces are needed for
each of their restaurants, keeping in mind that theyre serving
coffee and the operation is not like any of your fast food
restaurants where the queuing may line up a little bit where
they're waiting for three or four minutes to get their food. This is
22758
a one -minute wait deal. Its a lot quicker response time, quicker
preparefion time, so we able to queue the traffic through the
facility a little bit quicker and that's why nationally they don't
need the queuing that we may need for a different type of
restaurant operefions. And with that, that's about all I have. If
you have any questions, Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney are here as well
to answer questions.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The ones that you mentioned in the other stales, are they all
located in satellite areas?
Mr. LeClair:
I'm just looking here on some of the other ones they have. Fort
Walton Beach, Florida; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vega, and I
don't know the particulars. These are the photos that you saw
here tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In other words, are you putting this site in the middle of a
parking lot, is what I'm trying to say?
Mr. LeClair:
Yes. Yes, they are.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are they all this small size?
Mr. LeClair
Yes, they are.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Because our ordinance says nothing smaller than 400 square
feet.
Mr. LeClair:
Right. Keep in mind that this operation is strictly a drive -up
operation. They don't need the sealing facilities.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In listening to you, there are a few places where I have a
problem. I mean you say parking. Well, we have ordinances
and ordinance would say that in this case in, we would be 22
parking spaces short. You're aware of that, right?
Mr. LeClair:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We also say that you have to have a waiting, off-street standing
for 20 cars. And according to our staff, that has not been
demonstrated, and of course the 400 square foot minimum
requirement I was looking through that ordinance the other day
and I said, that's pretty small. Who would build 400 square
feet? Well, here's one that's 192 so now I understand. With
400 1 have more appreciation for it. We really don't like satellite
facilities either. They create problems with traffic, safety and
things of that nature. Frankly, I have a lot of problems with this
request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22759
Mr. La Pine:
Is coffee all you sell here? I guess my question is, when the
people come and are stacked up there, do they have to wail
until they get to the window before they order what they want?
Is that correct? And you say you can pour the coffee, put sugar
and cream in it, and take the money all in one minute?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, would you please come forward and give us your name?
Steve Mahoney, 17885 Parkshore, Northville, Michigan.
Mr. La Pine:
And you can do all this within one minute?
Mr. Mahoney:
Yes. The average is a minute. With a smoothie, it takes about
half a minute more, so 90 seconds on a smoothie.
Mr. La Pine:
I have to agree that there's probably not a parking problem
there. That center is not doing well and I think one of the
reasons it's not doing well is because the Wonderland shopping
center across the street has closed down, but eventually its
going to reopen with something else, we hope. It may
rejuvenate that center where they may need that parking. I'm
not saying they will, but they may or may not. But the other
problem I have, years ago, I've been round here a long time,
there used to be these little satellite operations, like this. Ithink
it was Photomal. And we had a number of them. We had
nothing, nothing, but problems with those little operations.
Eventually, they couldn't make it. They went out of business.
Basically, a shopping center, in my opinion, isn't the right
location for something like this. A shopping center is supposed
to be a big open space for parking for the different tenants. I
have a problem with how people are going to see you from the
street. I assume you're going to be facing Plymouth Road. Is
that correct?
Mr. Mahoney:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Nobody is going to see you from Middlebelt. I just, quite frankly,
think its a bad location and like Mr. Pieroecchi pointed out, we
have an ordinance that says it's supposed to be 400 square
feet. It just doesn't seem that ifs the type of operation that we
should have in the middle of a shopping center.
Mr. Mahoney:
Can I respond to that?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
22760
Mr. Mahoney: We put a lot of research into other locations around the area
and statistics show that this site that we are proposing here is a
very good one from a traffic count, from the visibility, and from
experience from other Java Jo'z sites around the country. The
other thing about the size of the building, this building has won
all kinds of awards. ADA certified, all kinds of building awards.
It's one of the bigger buildings you'll find. One of the nicer
buildings you'll find. I mean, this isn't something that cost
$5,000 and you plop in. This is something that is hundreds of
thousands of dollars of investment on our part to put in and
make sure it enhances the facilities, not deter from it. I
understand what you're saying, Mr. LaPine, about the
Photomarls. I remember those. This is not a Photomarl. This
is something a little bit more extensive and that's why we took
the extra time and care to make sure the other tenants, Sports
Authority, Subway, some of the other folks, Waldenbooks, they
understood what we're bringing in. When they saw the building
and they saw the concept, they thought, wait a minute, this
might be what we've been warring here in a long, long time.
Some of those tenants are talking leaving that facility and that
strip mall because of lack of traffic. They think and statistics will
bear this out, at other Java Jo'z locations around the country, d
actually has increased the business traffic 30% - 35% percent
when you put one of these in the right location.
Mr. LaPine: I really dont understand how this will help the businesses. This
is a drive-thm. I would say most your business will be people
on their way to work in the morning, drive up, get a cup of
coffee, a donut and theyre gone. They not going to say, well,
I'm going to go into Sports Authority or something like that. I
don't know how you can say its going to generate business for
the center because its strictly a fastfood deal.
Mr. Mahoney: You're right. A lot of our business, a lot of our clients, a lot of
repeal business comes thm when theyre on their way,
convenience to their place of business for the morning or
afternoon. Where the business is generated is people that
would normally just fly by there not recognizing, oh, there's a
Subway there. Oh, there's a Waldenbooks there. Oh, there's a
Sports Authority way back there. Those type of things happen
in the real word and those types of situations are where these
businesses have seen an increase in their business because of
their visibility with the center. This is a hook that brings them
into that center.
Mr. LaPine: What you're saying then is that once they come in there and get
their coffee, they're going to come back. That may be true if
they live within the vicinity of the center, which most of the
22761
people know what's there who live in that vicinity. Somebody
that's coming through from Plymouth or some other town to the
west of us here, tie odds are, the same stores that we have in
that center they probably have in the town theyre at. I'm not
putting you down. I wish I could say you're going to be so
successful you're going to open three more.
Mr. Mahoney:
That's the plan.
Mr. LaPine:
I just dont think its the right place for this land of operation.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question. You said that you did a lot of research
Did you look at any other areas in our City?
Mr. Mahoney:
There's been other areas in your City. There's been very much
interest in othertownships and other cities as well.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where else did you look in our city for this coffee shop?
Mr. Mahoney:
I don't have the list here with me, but there's been at least
probably 10 other Livonia locations thalwe've looked at.
Mr. Alanskas:
We're they also in parking lots?
Mr. Mahoney:
Parking lots, right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Slrickly parking lots?
Mr. Mahoney:
Out lots. Right.
Mr. LeClair:
The out lot concept, by the way Mr. Chairman, is important
because for the startup costs, from a small business type
standpoint. I mean it's the best way to get in without a lot of
upfront costs involving the land and building the building. So if
you can find a lot that's in a good locafion that doesn't have a
restriction on the parking ... I mean it doesn't need a lot of
parking. Like this one, its a good concept to be able to gel in
there. That's why we go the out lot approach and that's why
Java Jo'z, quite frankly, looks for out lots across the country.
That's where they've been most successful.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess I have mixed emotions on this one. I see, relatively
speaking, young entrepreneurs come in with a new franchise
and I certainly respect that. I wish you well. My dilemma is, in
my years on the Planning Commission, we've even resisted
restaurants and banks being out lots in the shopping centers.
My dilemma is opening up, setfing a precedent for your
business as well as other satellite businesses beginning to dot
22762
our parking lots. And so on that note, as much as I wish I could
support your petition, it is my concem that it's just not good
planning, from my standpoint, to begin to add these satellites,
particularly this size. I respect what you're doing but I'm just not
sure that this is the area to do it. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I have to echo what I've heard here. The other thing that
concerns me is that right now the shopping center is not doing
very much business as you say. But bere's no doubt in my
mind that when the property across the street is finally
developed, whether it's Wal-Mart or whoever it is, its going to
bring business to this area, and I think that's going to change
this site. I think its going to exacerbate the problems we're
talking about. Maybe right now it would work nicely, but once
that shopping center gets busy, and those 500 and some
parking spaces are used, then we're going to have a traffic
problem we're concerned about. That's what's concerning me
right, now in addition to some of these other comments I've
heard.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Sir, do you have any last remarks you'd
like to make?
Mr. LeClair: Yes, just one thing because we did look at that and had several
discussions with the Java Jo'z people. I can hear your
comment with respect to the development across the street
coming in and that, frankly, I think is one of reasons why we're
getting such support from the existing tenants within this
development. The development coming in across the street ...
when you bring a super center in, what you see is typically a lot
of the local businesses get affected negatively, and I believe
that is probably one of the reasons why there's so much support
from the existing tenants. They're going to look for anything that
will bring in traffic in that main driveway. Even if its the morning
rush, if i's a lunchtime coffee, its going to bring traffic to those
tenants. I think that this facility, yes, it's not the traditional sit
down restaurant. It's a convenience type of thing. That's the
way our world is going now. In fact, I just aflended a meeting in
the City of Novi with respect to the parking calculations for
Twelve Oaks Mall, and the City of Novi was respectively
changing the way they calculate parking because the patterns in
which consumers go to the malls and go to the different stores
have changed. We don't go for the daylong or three hour trip
anymore. It's all convenence, and everything is get in, get out
quickly and that is part of the reason why, I think, we don't see
the traffic in that strip center. It would great if those tenants had
22763
that panting lot filled up everyday. They wouldn't want this
addifional unit in there then.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you came before us with your petition, were you aware
that your building was not the proper size per our ordinance?
Mr. LeClair:
Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
You were aware.
Mr. LeClair:
We do recognize there are additional steps that would be
required here.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm going to close the public hearing and a motion is in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The reason I'm going to offer a motion to deny is, there's really
five areas here which I will read, but we haven't even gotten into
signage. That would be over our ordinance requirements. You
have size deficiency, off street standing for 20 cars, a satellite
operation and it results in a packing deficiency. But I will read
these prepared motions here.
On a motion
br Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#10-111-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-02-17 submitted by MRM Company, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a drive
through restaurant (Java Jolz) in the Woodland Square
shopping center, on property located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Sears Drive in
the Southeast % of Section 26, City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200509-02-
17 be denied forthe following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shay that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the proposal would result in the loss of a significant
number of off-street parking spaces serving the Woodland
Square shopping center and a parking deficiency of 22
spaces with respect to the parking requirement for the total
overall site;
22764
3. That the proposal will be detrimental to and in conflict with
routes of traffic flow and access of off-street parking within
the Woodland Square center;
4. That the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with
the requirement for drive-through restaurants that off-street
standing areas shall be provided for vehicles wailing to be
served sufficient to accommodate no less than twenty (20)
vehicles;
5. That the proposal is not in compliance with the requirement
that no commercial or business building shall be erected in
a C-2 district having a first floor area of less than four
hundred (400) square feet; and
6. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other
things, are intended to insure compatibility and
appropriateness of uses.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. You have 10 days to appeal to the City
Council.
ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 913th Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 913" Public Hearings and Regular Meefing held
on September 20, 2005.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-111-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 913" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on
September 20, 2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Piercecohi, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
22765
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 915" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 25, 2005, was adjourned at 9:45
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman