Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-05-19 16123 MINUTES OF THE 764th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Amer On Tuesday, May 19, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 764th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James McCann Daniel Piercecchi Elaine Koons William LaPine Michael Hale Members absent: Robert Alanskas Messrs.'s John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning or vacating request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten w.. days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliniary plat approval. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann: If there is anyone in the audience on item#2, the D/R Group Limited Partnership for Petition 98-3-1-3, the petitioner has withdrawn that petition. It will not be heard tonight. He is not going forward with that rezoning. We will not be dealing with that issue tonight. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Extension of Waiver Use Approval in connection with petition 96-10-2-29 from Ron Hartlieb requesting an extension of the approval of Petition 96-10-2-29 to develop a detached condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: Mr. Hartlieb's letter dated 4/27/98 to the City Planning Commission reads as follows: I am requesting an extension on my waiver use for Site Plan 16124 for Hees Cove. Engineering is moving along, I want to insure that enough time is available for any revisions, as well as any Condo work required for the completion of this project. I have been working diligently towards the completion of this engineering, unanticipated developments have increased the time of completing the engineering, such as the Cities request for Soil borings near the holidays in the end of 1997 thus requiring scheduling of same early 1998. Additional time was spent on determination of existing Sanitary vs. use of private Sewers requiring a city field investigation with City inspectors. Last years extremely busy construction season made it difficult to find an Engineer who's work load was not several months booked in advance. I chose the Company that seemed to be able to both handle this project professionally and get to it the quickest. We have been both working towards this completion ever since but would like additional time should any other circumstances arise. That is signed by Ron Hartlieb, 19919 Negaunee, Redford, Michigan. That is the extent of our correspondence. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #5-74-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a letter dated April 27, 1998 from Ron Hartlieb requesting an extension of approval of Petition 96-10-2-29 to develop a detached condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has demonstrated that extenuating circumstances have prevented the project from commencing in a timely manner; and 2) That the project merits an extension in time within which to commence construction because it represents a good land use solution for the development of the subject property given its configuration and small size, as well as its unusual location and position with respect to existing streets. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Withdrawal Letter from D/R Group Limited Partnership for Petition 98-3-1-3 by Charles Tangora representing D/R Group, LL, requesting to rezone property located south of the CSX Railroad, west of Stark Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1. 16125 Mr. McCann: There is a letter from the D/R Group. Dear Council Members, Please be advised at this time we wish to cancel our request for the rezoning of the above captioned 36.85 feet. Should you have any questions regarding our cancellation request please feel free to contact our office at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Michael Roth. That was received May 12. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #5-75-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-3-1-3 and pursuant to a request dated May 8, 1998 from D/R Group Limited Partnership, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 98-3-1-3 by Charles Tangora representing DR Group, LL, requesting to rezone property located south of the CSX Railroad, west of Stark Road, in the SW 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-1-7 by Jonna Realty Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the west side of I-275 between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 from POII to C-2 and C-4. Nor Mr. Nagy: You may recall from the public hearing that a traffic study was done. They hired McNamee, Porter & Seeley of Arm Arbor to prepare such a report, and we are now in possession of that report. That's the extent of new correspondence since the public hearing. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #5-76-98 RESOLVED, that Petition 98-4-1-7 by Jonna Realty Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the west side of I-275 between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 from POII to C-2 and C-4 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: As this is a pending item, we have discussed this at prior meetings, there will be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Jonna is not here tonight? r.. 16126 Robert Carson: I am representing Mr. Jonna along with Mr. Walkon, who was part of this development, are here to address these questions. The Commission should also know that the representatives of both potential users, Homestead Village and Homewood Suites Hotel, and the traffic consultant are here also. Mr. LaPine: Unfortunately, we just received this study tonight and I haven't had a chance to look at it. I can't comment on that because I don't know what it says. Mr. Carson: We do have the consultant with us tonight to answer any of your questions. I think his conclusions are fairly straight forward as this is a less intensive use than currently zoned. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Jonna stated at the last meeting that the reason he wanted this zoning from the POII to the commercial was that he felt that the PO zoning that was east of 275 was the right place to have it because the Haggerty corridor was commercial and he felt that commercial was a legitimate use for that property. There is property zoned C-2 east of 275. It's in litigation. It was POII, then it was zoned to C-2, now it is in litigation because the City Council zoned it back to POII. At the time that rezoning happened, did Pentagon Properties have any objection to that going to C- 2? �..- Mr. Walkon: No, they made no formal objection. Mr. LaPine: As you probably know, a lot of building is going on for high rise office buildings. A lot of that is going on throughout the metropolitan area and throughout the country. Livonia probably has less POII zoning than any other classification we have in the city. Therefore, it seems to me we have to have more than that justification to deviate from the Master Plan. Basically, my reasoning is that we only have a little POII left and there is going to be someone who wants to build an office building along that corridor. I would like to know what you think about that. Mr. Walkon: Point well taken. I think there is a good demand for office right now. The best demand we have seen in a number of years. The problem with this piece of property is that because it has become a commercial corridor, it is not considered a premier office site. It's a secondary office site. The type of office development that you would attract is not the kind that you necessarily want. The property that David Johnson worked on for a number of years has become the premier office site, and the property was listed for (I'm going to guess) ten years by two or three of the major office people. There really were no bites. I'll tell you a couple of reasons why. There's kind of an access problem. Secondly, anyone who wanted to pay "" today's price to build a building wanted to go over to Victor Park. 16127 Mr. LaPine: On the meeting we had, we had a letter from Homestead Village that basically told us that they have taken a survey of the Detroit Metropolitan area and the nation, the number of hotels, the average in the nation is 60% and the Detroit Metro area is 67% and the hotel market in Livonia is 77%. Now the firm that did this, Smith Travel Research, are they a national firm? Mr. Carson: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I have an article out of the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, May 14, 1998, where it says that hotel occupancy reached a four year low, the strongest proof yet that the nation $88 billion a year lodging industry has a bad case of over-building blues. Occupancy rate for the first quarter fell below 60% for the first time since 1994 and expects to go down from a year earlier from important summer rates. So what they are really saying here is that hotels are being built too many of them. The problem looms largely along middle scale and economic hotels, which these are. Everyone is rushing in and building, franchisees have rushed in and sprout up. In Texas 9 hotels sprung up within a thousand yards of the Fairfield Inn in Irving, Texas. The building is up over 70% above the annual rate of hotels within the past 25 years. This is according to Coopers & Lybrand. It goes on to tell why they think there is over- building. Now to get to you. It says here much of the industry's building `°' boom has focused on limited service hotels who have no restaurants or room service, and extended stay hotels which cater to business travelers and families staying several weeks. These kind of hotels account for 71% of new construction even though the demand for these markets has grown no faster than the average. What they are saying is that we have an over- abundance of hotels and something has to give here. My worry is that if we allow more hotels, and down the line they go under, what do we do with a hotel. That's a problem that I think not only we should think about, but whoever your people who are building this should wonder about that too. Mr. Walkon: I think that is the concern of anyone else who has asked the question, "Is there an over-building of hotels?" There's a whole lot of rooms being built. I read that article in the Wall Street Journal. It addresses the whole country. Livonia right now is better than the average throughout the country. Let's take the worst case scenario. Let's say that article is right and Livonia becomes part of that. What happens? If you recall, even through the RTC, nothing happened other than someone bought a mortgage for 80% of the mortgage. No one tore down hotels, motels and four story buildings. They just changed ownership. From the City's standpoint, you are worried about an abandoned building, an eyesore, a place where kids are going to play and smoke pot. Never happened. 16128 Taking these two specifically. These are New York stock exchange companies. They are not franchisee. I am going to approximate the cost involved in both of these hotels. Somewhere between $20 and $23 Million dollars. If they abandon these buildings, they have lost somewhere between $20 and $23 million dollars. Mistakes have been made, but someone else would pick it up. You are not going to see a 3 or 4 story abandoned building, if that is your concern. Now what happens when it becomes competitive. You do a little better job, you clean up the room a little better, you lower the rates a little bit. You don't make as much money. Normally, that's what happens. Mr. Hale: What is the problem with the elevation as it stands currently that makes it difficult to develop it as an office complex? Mr. Walkon: It's a funny site; the highest site in Wayne County. It's a great hotel site, not a good office site. That's not to say, Mr. Hale, that some day someone won't build an office building there, but it is not going to be an A building, it will be a C building. It's great for a hotel because it can be seen from the expressway. Mr. Hale: I realize we only have a zoning petition tonight, but the building you are planning to put in the terms of$20-23 million for this project, seems to me that it would be a first rate building that is going to differ from many of the other hotels that are going up or already constructed. Could you N"" comment on that? Mr. Walkon: I've learned one thing from this board, it watches when you say something six months later, so do I expect the Board to say all brick? Yes, I do. Do I expect you to say the minimum landscaping and probably more? Yes, I do. Mr. Hale: What makes this building particularly special when we are talking about this type of financial component to it that is so large? That's considerably more than other hotels that are going up in the area. Why? Mr. Walkon: It's two separate hotels. They are both about $11 million each. Mr. Hale: What about the C-2 parcel? You wanted the C-4 for the hotels and C-2 for the other. No plans for the C-2 currently? Mr. Walkon: No. Mr. Hale: What if that remained POII? Is that something that could be developed in your mind into mid-rise type of development? 16129 Mr. Walkon: You are assuming that the hotels are approved and the other site denied. It doesn't have good exposure, would never be built probably. New Mr. Hale: You believe it might be built into a mid-rise? Would it need to be rezoned to have an effective use for that parcel? Mr. Walkon: No, it is properly zoned now for office. POII. Mr. Hale: You would like to have that changed to C-2. Is that right? Mr. Walkon: That is correct. I'm saying that if for any reason the Board was to deny that aspect, the two hotels would still be zoned properly and go forward. Mr. Hale: My question is what are we going to do with that remaining parcel? Do you have any thoughts on that? Mr. Carson: We thought the most likely use would be a use that requires C-2 zoning because we think the hotels would be an excellent use along the freeway. You then have coming before you reach the freeway, the remaining parcel which is between the split in the road that goes between the CBS technocolor, and coming alongside the high-tech office research is the entrance to the north and the restaurants and theaters to the south. It is like a triangle with the road split off. It has no visibility from Haggerty or the freeway, so we think that the most likely use would be C-2. Mrs. Koons: I don't think Mr. Hale got ahead of himself, but I think I am going to get a little ahead of ourselves. Known to me is Homewood Suites. I stayed at one in Charlotte, North Carolina. Unknown to me is Homestead Village. Which is the higher priced one? Mr. Carson: Homewood is the higher priced product. Mrs. Koons: Since that is known to me, can you compare that to AmeriSuites at all? David , Vice President of Market Analysis for Promus Hotel Corporation: Promus is the corporate entity that owns Homewood Suites. Just real briefly let me explain to you that Homewood Suites is a true suite. To put that in the other use of the term, we have two rooms separated by a wall and a door. One room, which is the living area, has a kitchenette inside. The kitchenette has a full refrigerator, microwave, two burner or four burner stove top, dishwasher, garbage disposal, coffee pot. In several units the bedroom has either a queen bed or two double beds. There are either one bedroom or two bedrooms and separate bedroom facilities and they are basically designed for long term stay, 5 days to 30 days plus. AmeriSuites is more like a regular hotel room. They usually are somewhat larger """'` rooms. They have a semi wall, or partial wall, that separates the sitting 16130 area from the bedroom area. We have designed two separate areas for privacy. They generally have a microwave oven. They do not have any stoves. They generally have mini refrigerators, coffee makers and are not v" specifically designed for extended stay and basically we have more amenities than regular hotel rooms. Mr. McCann: If we allowed the petitioner to speak, it's fair to let anyone in the audience have the opportunity to speak. I don't see any one. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was #5-77-98: RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-4-1-7 by Jonna Realty Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the west side of I-275 between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 from POII to C-2 and C-4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-4-1-7 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is not needed for the subject property to be developed; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of office for this area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses already prevalent in the areas adjacent to the freeway; and 4) that sufficient data has not been provided to justify more hotel units in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Piercecchi, LaPine, Koons NAYS: Hale ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi: I appreciate what Mr. LaPine stated earlier, and as you may recall, 4411p, during our previous meeting I presented data regarding Livonia's position 16131 along with the units of the Hampton, the Hilton, the Travelodge and another extended stay facility just north of the proposed rezoning. I honestly don't know the answer, but I do know this from contact with the *41.- two nearest facilities, the Hampton Inn and the AmeriSuites which is now under construction. The Hampton Inn is in good position and is down only slightly from 1997. I couldn't reach the owning company, Equity Inn. Prime Hospitality however is a different story. Prime would not have located in the area if the PO district was not in place when they committed. A spokesman stated that the PO district was considered a valuable asset. Office space generates business. It is their greatest source of customers. This space was not considered to be competition with them, but in synchronization with them. History shows that in 1991, the petitioner here this evening, the Jonna Corporation, requested that these parcels be rezoned to POII. I do believe that the petitioner was correct in 1991 in having the zoning changed to POII, and I think that POII is the proper zoning for these parcels. Mr. Hale: I have studied this project in detail and I believe the petitioner has made an affirmative showing that Livonia is different from a hotel standpoint and additionally this hotel project itself is considerably different from other areas. I believe that the zoning would be consistent with the surrounding area, therefore I will vote against the current motion. Mr. McCann: Some of the arguments made before us are that the change in the area has __, gone to commercial, therefore the zoning is not proper, however, the move to commercial was in large part the petitioner's. They took the part to the north because there was a slowdown in the office area, and they needed to generate some income. They put in a Target and now we have a Costco next door to it. They moved to the south end with the theater complex, two restaurants and a hotel. At that time it was stated that it would go hand in hand with the PO that was left. It would provide entertainment in the complex for the office area and the research development that surrounds it. The area is really over-saturated with hotels. The concerns about hotels being abandoned, that's our concern. What you do in times of crisis, you lower the rates. The lower the rates, the more they become cheap apartments. The crime goes up, we have more problems and it is much more costly for city services. The difference between the POII and the C-2 and C-4 is a tremendous amount of difference of services between our police and fire departments. There is no POII left off of Seven Mile and Haggerty. That was going to be prime office development along that area. It has taken a tremendous change, but it is not a problem to develop that area. Livonia needs the type of jobs that are generated by prime office, not by more restaurants and more commercial. That area is over-saturated with it, it is not the type of employment we need to bring to the city. The access to the site at the theater complex came before us. They stated that it would be one of the main accesses to the site, that there would be a lot of 16132 greenery around it, that it would be a beautiful access to the PO that was going in at the back. I've talked to two different developers that have done large projects in the Detroit metro area. We have discussed this location, and they say it is a choice location. It is not at all a secondary location. They say the visibility from 275 would be any corporation's dream of having that kind of location where it is the highest point of the city and can be seen anywhere along 275 in both directions. It is surrounded by a theater complex; it has four or five restaurants within walking distance, it has commercial at the north end of the theater complex. It provides everything that a good office facility would want. My concern is that we are not here because it would not make good office. I think we are here because it could make more money for the developer as C-2 and C-4 than it can for PO and C-2. I think that's true wherever you go with PO and C- 2 and C-4. It's one of the prime locations left in Livonia, there was good reasoning put forth when we changed it to POII, and I don't think there has been an affirmative demonstration for that to be changed at this time. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 762nd Regular Meeting held on April 21, 1998. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #5-78-98 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 762nd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on April 21, 1998 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8- 15 by A.D.I. Realty, Inc., on behalf of Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a retail store on property located at 29500 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Hidden Lane. It is located between the Thrifty Flower Shop and a Co- op Credit Union. Presently on the site is an office building. Arbor Drugs is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a 10,972 sq.ft. Arbor Drug Store on the site. Access to the site would be by a single driveway off of Five Mile Road, two aisleways connecting the McDonald's property which is east, and an aisleway connecting the north property which is also an office building. To help the traffic flow, there is existing parking along the north property line which would be removed and replaced with landscaping, and the displaced parking would be relocated on the Arbor Drugs property facing the restaurant. They are required to have *law 59 parking spaces for Arbor Drugs, and they have 100 located on the site 16133 minus the 14, leaving 86. They meet the parking requirement. The McDonald's is required to have 51 spaces, they show 40 on the site, plus the 14 which brings it to 54, so they meet the parking requirement. We Now have received an easement agreement between the property owners for the shared parking. Landscaping requirement is 15% of the total site, they show 20%, so they exceed the landscaping requirement. The building elevations show that the building would be brick on all 4 sides with a synthetic plaster canopy over the entrance area and also over the drive-thru window which is located on the west elevation. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Matt Ray, 3331 West Big Beaver, Troy, Architect, representing ADI Realty Mr. Piercecchi: My basic question is why. You have a store there in the mall. I have been there 3 or 4 times within the last week and you are doing a marvelous business. I hope this isn't just for a drive-through window. Bob Beal, Vice President of real estate for Arbor Drug Stores: We are in the corner of that center which is not very convenient. The lease is expiring in less than 2 years, and the answer to your question is no, we are not relocating just for a prescription pickup window. The main reason we are relocating is to offer more convenience to the customer. The shopping center owner has plans to expand the supermarket in the center and would like to take some of the space that would be available by Arbor moving out of that center. Mr. Piercecchi: There are other stores between you and the grocery store. Mr. Beal: Yes. They would relocate to our space. Mr. Piercecchi: Your lease is up in two years? Mr. Beal: Yes. Ford Motor Company's lease is up in April next year, and our lease is up in April the following year. Mr. Piercecchi: There is no possibility of renewal? Mr. Beal: There is possibility of renewal. Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I am mainly concerned about it is that the location and size and character of the building is really out of place there. That area is basically office. There are 3 in a row. There is a flower shop on the corner and then 3 office buildings. Even if it is zoned C-2, it really is office. Another thing, I am very, very concerned about all the entrances. You are going to run traffic north, past cars parked at the building north. You are going to have two lanes of traffic off of McDonald's, and an entrance from v.., 16134 Five Mile Road. I think that's a traffic hazard. Our ordinance discourages that type of operation. Your intensity is going to be different, too. It is really out of character with the buildings that are currently there. N.. Mr. Beal: I respectfully disagree with you that it is out of character. We are looking at McDonald's and a flower shop as adjacent tenants. We worked very long and hard to make as many access points as possible to alleviate and make it convenient without having traffic problems on the site. The traffic in through the McDonald's is strictly one way. It doesn't seem that we have created a congestion. I think we have eliminated many problems with respect to access ingress and egress to the site by making it as easy as possible. Mr. Piercecchi: The two entrances off of Middlebelt are going to be through the McDonald's. Those are both one way? Mr. Beal: No, there is only one through McDonald's and it is one way. There is a one-way drive from Middlebelt and one from Five Mile. A one way drive coming in from Middlebelt from the north and one way from the south. The southern portion is one-way out from McDonald's. Mr. Piercecchi: It looks like a traffic zoo. Mr. LaPine: On the plan I have in front of me it looks like there is a driveway behind McDonald's to the west. It shows a one-way drive. The 14 parking spaces that they are going to give or lease to McDonald's is on their property? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. LaPine: There was a fence there Saturday. I was there today and the fence is ripped down and they are now putting up steel beams across there and they told me that was to keep the people from coming through. Mr. Beal: The arrangement we have is that we are doing the work as part of our project. I believe that is something temporary being put up by McDonald's. We have a period of time to put this all into effect, contingent of course upon site plan approval. That additional parking for McDonald's that is on our property will not be accessible from the Arbor site. It would be a one-way aisle coming in and accessible only from McDonald's off of Middlebelt. Mr. LaPine: It is two-way off of Five Mile. That is the way I did it today. Mr. Beal: Someone coming in to McDonald's off of Middlebelt, and realize that we are improving the McDonald's driveway, currently it is not a split 16135 driveway, they would come in on the northern half, one-way in, circulate around the building, and park either in that parking that is being provided by Arbor or circulate through the drive-thru. r.. Mr. LaPine: What is your arrangement with McDonald's? Are they leasing this property from you? Mr. Beal: We have a reciprocal lease agreement. Mr. LaPine: So that if McDonald's moved out and someone else moved in, they would still have the right to the use of that parking? Mr. Beal: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Why would we want to tear down a nice looking, three-story office building, well landscaped, well taken care of, to put up an Arbor Drugs. If you would have come to me and said you want to go on the southwest corner where there is a gas station and an old strip mall. If you could buy that up and buy the gas station and put your Arbor Drugs there, I think that would be a good move. It would clean up the area. For me to say let's get rid of that office - that office to me is in really good shape, looks good, it is well maintained. The other two office buildings there are all maintained well, why wreck a building and put up another building? Now Mr. Beal: The other properties are not available. Mr. LaPine: There are other properties around Livonia. It just doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Beal: We have a store across the street that requires replacement. There is new competition in the area, as you know, a mile up the street. There's new competition less than a mile to the west. Our store is old, although well maintained, and I hope you find it convenient. But in the crotch of that shopping center, it is not competitive. If we are going to stay in business and maintain the leadership that we have in this market, and offer the services that we have, and we have been in Livonia with a large number of stores for a long period of time. We have to modernize, we have to be competitive. There is no business that can survive and be outdone by the competition. That is exactly the situation we are in right now. Mr. LaPine: My thinking is, as a resident in this town, why tear down a nice-looking building to replace it with a drug store. If you were in a derelict strip mall and demolishing that, I would probably be more sympathetic to your proposal. 16136 Mr. Beal: As a drug store operator, if we are going to relocate this store and I think we need to relocate it in the proximity of the existing store. To do that, our first choice was to find an alternate corner location. We explored the '�► southeast corner; that was impossible. We explored the northeast corner and that was impossible. We tried to buy the gas station in the existing center. We conceptually thought about going down to with the fruit market a little south. It was a less satisfactory location, less convenient and with the majority of our business coming from Five Mile Road going east and west, it was not visible for our Five Mile Road customers. The only alternative left was this particular building. After spending a great deal of time and effort, and with more than one broker and more than one developer, this was the only opportunity for us. Mr. LaPine: There are so many of these drug stores going into Livonia, between Arbor Drugs, Rite Aid and now Walgreens, what do you people in your marketing department feel your radius is that you are getting business from? Mr. Beal: Of course it varies with density and competition, but the primary trade area for Arbor in a city like Livonia that is fairly mature, is no more than three quarters of a mile. It may stretch to a mile if there is no competition. Mr. LaPine: So I would have to assume that if there is a Walgreens or Rite Aid across the street, they are basically drawing from the same geographical area. Mr. Beal: Pretty much. Mr. LaPine: So all you are doing is taking each other's business and cutting each other's throat. Mr. Beal: We have had a very successful operation. We compete favorably with everybody else if we are able to get the opportunity to put ourselves in the right position. I can't complain about competition coming into a market. That's what drives business and the economy. Mrs. Koons: What is your current square footage? Mr. Beal: 10,220 sq. ft. Mrs. Koons: So you won't be increasing your size that much. Mr. Beal: No. I could be off by 1000 feet. Mrs. Koons: How do you measure your customers - per hour, per day, per week? Do you have a current number? If not customers, dollars. 16137 Mr. Beal: You are asking for a competitive secret. Mrs. Koons: What do you hope will happen with whatever number your business is? Now Mr. Beal: I believe it will be more competitive, more convenient. This store will be slightly larger. I think our business will go up. I would hope that it would go up 25%. Mrs. Koons: Do you think you will loose any walk-in traffic by not being in a shopping center? Mr. Beal: I don't think there is any appreciable walk-in traffic. There is very little cross-shopping. Most drug store trips are a destination. Whatever we might loose in cross shopping, we will pick up because we will be more convenient. Right now if you try to park in front of that Arbor store, it is very difficult because our entrance is right in the middle and our parking field is very limited. Mr. Hale; How many Arbor's do we have in Livonia currently? Mr. Beal: Four or five. Mr. Hale: What happens if you cannot relocate to this particular parcel and your lease is not renewed there, which sounds like it is not an absolute, but it could happen? Would you consider having only four Arbor's in Livonia? Mr. Beal: Obviously the key to success is being in the right location. If you can't get the right location, you shut that store down and you attempt to do something different. We have a very good franchise in that store. I was instrumental in developing this originally. It has always been a good location for Arbor Drugs. It was done very early in our development and we elected to take a position in that center. We did that because we thought there would be cross-traffic with the A&P and the ACO. That has proven over the years to be less of a factor. You see all of the competitors and all of the drug stores going to free-standing corners for the convenience factor and that's the key to success in the drug store business. Mr. Hale: What kind of traffic do you anticipate from Middlebelt to the adjacent office building there to the north? Do you anticipate that that will be a considerable flow that will come directly from Middlebelt? Mr. Beal: I don't foresee that as a factor at all. I did a study on the location of the customers for the store. As I stated earlier, most of our customers are coming from Five Mile. Probably 60-65% of our customers are coming from east and west along Five Mile to the site we are on right now. The 16138 access through the office was just something we added to try and help disperse traffic through there because it was more convenient. 'r.. Mr. Hale: Do you believe you really have a parking problem in your current location? Mr. Beal: Yes, absolutely. The addition of the restaurant on the corner hasn't helped at all. Mr. LaPine: I notice that all the cases we are hearing on these drug stores, they all want to be standing alone. Is another reason they don't want to be in shopping centers is that because the grocery stores all have drugs they sell? Mr. Beal: It is not a factor with us. We have permitted in many instances to have Farmer Jack and Kroger put pharmacies in their stores. 55% of our business is prescription business, and we stress the professional pharmacy. If you use our stores you will understand that there is a substantial difference between a pharmacy trip into an Arbor Drug Store versus a pharmacy trip into one of the mass merchandisers. We try to provide much more professional settings for that major portion of that business. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Miller made reference that if this is approved, it will be an all-brick building. Are we talking regular 4"brick, or are we talking about just square blocks? Mr. Beal: We are talking about hard brick. Mr. Piercecchi: We want Arbor to be more competitive. For the life of me, I am dumbfounded that you not sitting on the corner, that all alone on Five Mile Road can pick up more customers than in a mall that is more busy. I go to that pharmacy, and I don't have trouble parking. I don't know what this parking problem is. Are you just guessing? You inferred before that you are really not that acquainted. Mr. Beal: I am acquainted with the store. I have been in the center numerous times. Mr. Piercecchi: I just can't understand that because there will be a florist and then your building and then a co-op and then another office building. How can that draw people? I think it would be very difficult. If you were on the corner, perhaps. But you are not on a corner. Mr. Beal: Originally the concept was the same. We have proven over the years that our business is better for the customers without all that traffic congestion. Mr. Piercecchi: Practically every mall that we have has a drug store. 16139 Mr. Beal: Not one of the major drug stores will locate in a shopping center these days with the possible exception of an instance where there is absolutely no zoning within three or four miles. You will not find Rite Aid, Walgreen or r•• Arbor willing to take space in a shopping center. Mr. Piercecchi: We have an Arbor in a mall on Joy Road, we have one off of Six Mile and Farmington. Mr. Beal: And we are trying to relocate all of them. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #5-79-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-15 by A.D.I. Realty, Inc., on behalf of Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a retail store on property located at 29500 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general standards and requirements a set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the surrounding area, as well as the City as a whole, is already adequately serviced by this type of commercial use; 3) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents; 4) That by the nature of the proposed use the traffic flow to and from the property will unduly conflict with the established and normal use of the neighboring area; 5) That a commercial use is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission, which is to ensure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to promote property values, enhance neighborhood conformity and enjoyment; 6) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petition will go on to Council. 16140 Mr. Hale: One of my main concerns with this petition is the traffic issue which has been a concern since this petition first came to us. Although an effort is being made to alleviate the traffic concern, it is turning into a significant problem. Also, I think that the current area of office buildings is really kind of mixed. The surrounding building is important for office as well. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-16 by Eugene Puccio requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 15604 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Miller: The petitioner submitted some pictures of the adjacent building. This property is located on the east side of Farmington between Five Mile and Rayburn Avenue. Their proposal is to construct a small office building on the site. In December of 1995 the Planning Commission approved a similar building to the north, and this new proposed building will resemble the existing building in size. The new building would be 3596 sq.ft. and one story in height. It would butt up against the existing building, so once completed it would look as if it were one office building. They are required to have 14 parking spaces; they show 18 on the site plan, so it conforms to parking. The landscaping requirement is 15% of the total site and they show 28% and so they exceed the landscaping requirement. The building elevations would match the building to the north. There is brick on the west and south elevation and the east elevation would be split-faced block. Also, a dryvit system would be along the west elevation, which would face Farmington. The dryvit would also be over the entrances on the south elevation. Mr. Hale: Do you own the site? Eugene Puccio, Petitioner: Yes, I do. Mr. Hale: Do you own both parcels? Mr. Puccio: Just the one. Mr. Hale: You are purchasing the one where the house is located currently? Mr. Puccio: Yes. Mr. Hale: That would be demolished and the new building would be all the way up to the new building, contiguous with it, although it will not be one and the same. 16141 Mr. Puccio: That is right. We butt right up against it and it will be the same brick. We want to make it look like one. Ni•- On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #5-80-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-16 by Eugene Puccio requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 15604 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by Carl Knaebel, P.E., as received by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by Carl Knaebel, P.E. as received by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; 6) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8- 17 by Abington Development requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium development on property located at 29505 Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Clarita between Middlebelt and Melvin. The new development would be called Curtis Avenue Site 16142 Condominiums. The petition is requesting to construct a condominium development consisting of eight separate condominium units. The parcel is zoned R-2 and all the property meets the requirements of an R-2 zoning r.• district. The petitioner has submitted tonight a new, revised site plan that addresses the concerns of the Inspection Department where they stated that there is no common area on the site. The petitioner has adjusted his site plan where it shows a 10 foot wide landscaped area along Clarita Avenue on both sides of the drive into the project. He labels this common area. Mr. Nagy: No other issues. The Engineering Department in the letter of May 7 indicates that they have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. The Fire Marshal in his letter of May 8 states that they have reviewed the site plan in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on the property and they have no objection to this proposal. The Traffic Division in their letter of May 11 indicated they have no objection to the site plan as submitted. The Inspection Department in their letter of May 15 indicates that 1) the site plan was reviewed under R-2 district regulations, and 2) The site plan does not provide common area for the development. That's the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Lawrence C. Lenchner, 770 S. Adams Road, Birmingham, Michigan: Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, we talked last week about making sure the condominium by- laws provide for the brick. Was that addressed? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little about your development? Mr. Lenchner: Basically, as you can see, it is an eight detached condominium development which would be residential houses and a revised plan to show a 10' greenbelt area along the front with a sign on the west side of the entrance. A ground sign depicting the name of the development. Mr. LaPine: John, these bylaws have all been read by the Law Department? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. LaPine: It says under Driveways,Driveways and other paved areas for vehicular or pedestrian use within a Unit shall have a base of compacted sand, gravel, crushed stone or other approved base material and shall have a wearing surface of asphalt". Does that mean that the driveway up to the house is asphalt, or is it concrete? Do we allow asphalt? w 16143 Mr. Nagy: For the driveways, yes. Mr. LaPine: I haven't seen too many of those around Livonia. They are mostly concrete. Are you building this whole complex? Mr. Lencher: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So you have complete control. Whatever you have with one, you will have with all. You won't have an asphalt here, a concrete driveway there; everything is going to be the same? Mr. Lencher: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The roads are all going to be concrete or are they going to be asphalt? Mr. Lencher: I'm not sure what your ordinance calls for. Mr. Nagy: The ordinance calls for concrete, but the city will accept as an alternative, deep strength asphalt 7" as an acceptable alternative. Mr. LaPine: The brick veneer, stone or wood - that will be taken care of by the Inspection Department. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #5-81-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-17 by Abington Development requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium development on property located at 29505 Clarita Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01-20.06 of the ordinance, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated: - that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick on each unit shall not be less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80% on one-story homes; 16144 2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; '- 3) That the Site Plan prepared by Stenrose Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on April 21, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8- 18 by Sam Baki requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road in the South 1/2 of Section 5. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh and Bicentennial Drive. It is proposing to develop a site condominium development called Fox Creek Estates Site Condominiums. It is a new development of 16 condominium units. Access to the site `.► would be an L-shape type of drive which would end into a cul-de-sac. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division in their letter of May 8, 1998 states they have reviewed the petition and have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. The Fire Marshal in his letter of May 8 states they have no objection to this proposal. The Traffic Bureau in their letter of May 11 states they have no objection to the site plan as submitted. The Inspection Department in their letter of May 15 indicates that they too have reviewed the petition and the following is noted: 1) As proposed, the site plan does not show common area for the development. 2) Lot #1 does not have the required width for an R-3 lot with the side yard abutting a major thoroughfare. (Section 4.40 required, 110 ft. provided 94.59). Mr. McCann: John, is this the same plan that was approved as a preliminary site plan? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the layout is the same. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Sam Baki, 36700 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan: We have the same layout that we had originally last year, but we are coming in as site condominiums. The minimum requirement of the R-3 zoning is 9600 sq.ft. and as you notice, 16145 the average lot size we have here is 15,855 sq.ft. The first lot, which supposedly was deficient, I was told by the zoning ordinance with respect to the common area, everything on Seven Mile Road is a common area • W because we are going to have a berm running across Seven Mile on both sides of the property, so that Lot 1 is not going to be abutting into a major throughway. It is going to be abutting into a common area, and that's permitted under the zoning. Mr. McCann: John, are we going to have to clarify that? Mr. Nagy: Yes. You could approve it subject to, or table it, but I think we will have to clarify it. Mr. LaPine: This development abuts three houses he is building on Seven Mile Road. What are lots A, B, C? Mr. Nagy: Those are separate, not part of this, but they represent additional acreage that Mr. Baki has and went through and obtained lot splits to create those parcels with the intention to build homes on those lots. Mr. LaPine: I am curious about Lot C. It seems to be a triangle. Mr. Nagy: Yes. It was approved as a minimum lot frontage in excess of the of 80'. The lot area is in excess of 9600 sq. ft. because it has what is called fixed and moveable boundaries. Mr. LaPine: So he is going to build single family homes on them? Mr. Nagy: Right. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Baki, are you going to develop this, or are you going to do like on your other condo unit, develop it and make the improvements and then sell the lots off to other builders? Mr. Baki: I'll be doing both. Mr. LaPine: You will have a berm running all along it? The house that will face Levan Court will have a berm along Seven Mile Road. How high will that berm be? Mr. Baki: I believe the code is 3'. Whatever the code permits. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to plant trees or anything on top of that? Mr. Baki: Yes, we are going to have trees. '41410.* 16146 Mr. LaPine: John, will he have to submit a landscape plan? Mr. Nagy: Yes. r.. Mr. Piercecchi: What are the these lots running? Mr. Baki: We are going to be starting at $100,000. Mr. Piercecchi: The cost of the homes then will be up in the $300,000 range? Mr. Baki: The cost of the homes, $350,000 plus. Mr. Piercecchi: That is including the lot? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Hale: A tabling motion would be in order in light of the ZBA situation. It does need to be addressed by that body and my opinion is that it needs to be addressed before we really can act on it. Mr. McCann: There is no discussion, but John I want to have a clarification. I don't believe it has to go to ZBA. Mr. Nagy: If I understand the position they are taking on the corner lot, if under a Nu. conventional subdivision widening that corner lot from 80' to 110', providing for a 30' greenbelt on that lot is a requirement for the ordinance, so therefore that lot actually has within it a 30' easement for landscaping. What they are advancing here is the theory that now that this is site condominium, the common greenbelt area is now being provided for along Seven Mile Road and is common to all the lots within the project area. Therefore, it doesn't fall on Lot #1. It really is a stand alone common area for all. So in theory it no longer is a corner lot. It does not have a side yard on the street. It has a side yard on a common area. Therefore it actually is an interior lot. It does not have to be wider, it does not have a side yard on a street, it doesn't have a side yard on a thoroughfare. So if it shared by all, it really only needs to be an 80' lot. He does have it at 94.4 feet, so it is still wider than the minimum requirement. I can understand the theory, and I don't have a problem with it. You want to make sure that other departments similarly agree. Mr. Hale: It will need a variance as it is currently proposed. Mr. McCann: No, John is saying it will not. He will just need to meet with the Building Department to state that it is fine the way it sits. They would redo their letter. 16147 Mr. Nagy: I will also take it up with the Law Department. On a motion by Mr. Hale, supported by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was Num. #5-82-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 98-5-8-18 by Sam Baki requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road in the South 1/2 of Section 5 to June 9, 1998. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Revision to previously approved building elevation plans in connection with site plan Petition 97-12-8-24 by Woodhaven of Livonia. Mr. McCann: I have received a letter dated May 19, 1998 from the Woodpointe Senior Living Facility stating This letter is to inform you of the decision of the Woodpointe Building Committee to remove their submittal from the Livonia Planning Commission meeting. They have decided not to pursue the issue of deleting the brick from the gable ends of the building and substituting it with wood. Therefore we request that we be removed from tonight's agenda. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #5-83-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a request dated May 19, 1998 from The Architects Design Group, architects for Woodhaven of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of revised building elevation plans in connection with site plan Petition 97-12-8-24 by Woodhaven of Livonia. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 764th Regular Meeting held on May 19, 1998 was adjourned at 9:00 PM. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: % :ir. ,------ /Mmes McCann, Chairman i'