HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-03-24 15979
MINUTES OF THE 761st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 24, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 761st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM with
approximately interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members Absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. S. Allen 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 request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
Niko. which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated.
The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a
vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after
the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon
their filing and 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: Anyone here tonight on Item 5, Preliminary Plat Approval for Merriman
Forest Subdivision to be located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the NW 1/4 of Section
11, the petitioner has requested that that be withdrawn. He has acquired
additional property and will be resubmitting the plat. If there is anyone
here on that petition, we are not going to be hearing that tonight. You can
leave your name with Doris Urbanski and she will notify you of the next
hearing when they refile it with the new preliminary plat.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-2-1-2
by Realty Development Company requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Victor Parkway, north of Pembroke in the NE 1/4 of Section 6 from
P0-1 (High Rise Professional Office) to OS (Office Services).
v...
15980
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
•
.r„ Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division stating they have no
objections to the proposal although we would like to point out that there is
a chance that the parcel in question may contain wetlands areas, and the
developer would need to take this possibility into consideration when
designing any future buildings. That is signed by David Lear, Civil
Engineer I. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, MI. I am the owner of parcel 3 of
Victor Corporate Park which is 7.6 acres. I purchased the property to
develop an office to create a competitive environment for a market which
has not been satisfied within that geographical area. It is presently zoned
to provide that offices must be constructed from three stories to six stories.
There are a number of occupants with types of businesses that would
prefer not to be in a multi story building. They would rather be in a one or
two story building. The purpose of the site plan and the request for
rezoning is to try and develop a different type of product for a different
type of occupant to fit in this site. When I purchased the site, I shared my
thoughts with the adjacent property owners. Unfortunately,the letters of
support were not submitted to the Planning Commission because I was
told I had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first, and that was not the
proper venue. I am submitting to you a letter from Mr. DeMattia
supporting a one-story building; a letter from Valassis supporting a one-
story building, and a letter from David Johnson supporting a one-story
building. These were dated in December of 1997 when I filed application
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I can certainly have them updated for
you. The other concerns I had on why I think a three-to-six story building
is not appropriate on this site, not only to create a different type of market
for a different type of user, but secondly the size of the site itself requires
me to build a much smaller floor plate. By floor plate, I mean the size of
the building by floor, and it would probably require me to build a building
under 20,000 sq. ft. per floor. That inhibits users in expansion space.
That's the second reason.Number 3, again because the size of the site is
only 7.6 acres, I can't build a building of the size and magnitude to
compete with the proposed buildings that are going to be built on the PO
piece or the C4-III piece. They will be much larger buildings. Those
buildings may provide amenities of ancillary retail facilities, food facilities
and other common amenities which would put me in a severe competitive
disadvantage. For that reason I think this compliments the area. It
certainly doesn't distract from the area. It brings potential clients to that
site which would not be competitive with their sites, and we could be in a
much more friendly and competitive environment. We did some pictures
of a proposed building. This is an elevation that we did for a one-story
15981
building. It is about 25 feet in height and about the same elevation if we
were to build a two-story building. As a matter of fact, the 3M building
which is in Victor Corporate Park, although it is 35' in height which
``" qualifies for a three-story building, is only two stories in construction. It
was built that way to accomplish their use which was laboratory space and
office space. So for these combined reasons, we think that this would be a
good use of the property, would not jeopardize the concept of Victor
Corporate Park, was endorsed by the original developer of Victor
Corporate Park, was endorsed by the original owner and the adjacent
property owners, and that is the basis for our opinion. This is a proposed
site plan that delineates the building on the site. We are aware of the
potential wetland area and the drainage. Because the site drains west to
east, north to south, we created a water feature in the southwest corner of
the site, both to satisfy the wetland area and to satisfy the drainage
requirements of Victor Corporate Park. With me is Kevin Bittison, the
architect on the project, and we would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Piercecchi: You stated earlier that you do own the property.
Mr. Frankel: Fee simple title.
Mr. Piercecchi: When did you purchase this property?
Mr. Frankel: We closed in 1997.
Mr. Piercecchi: When you purchased it you were fully aware that it was PO-I
because it was rezoned from PO-III in 1995.
Mr. Frankel: Yes.
Mr. Piercechi: You also mentioned the 3M building that doesn't meet that criteria for a
two story building and you mentioned the roof line, but part of the
variance that was granted in addition to that because that building butted
against residential property. That was part of the reason for the variance.
When you look at that closely, you will see that there is PO all the way
around there. Don't you think your building will be a little out of
character? And what do you mean by your term "competitive building"?
Mr. Frankel: On the east side of Victor Corporate Park, north of Pembroke, There is a
one-story colonial building which is immediately adjacent to me, and I
have been told that there is a proposal to build two additional one-story
buildings adjacent to that colonial building. So the character on the east
side of Victor Corporate Park north of Pembroke is more single story
office environment than high-rise office. When I say to you that I want to
v...
15982
create a different product mix, what I am trying to say is that occupants
have different needs and different requirements. Some tenants would like
to be in an elaborate five or six story building with all the amenities.
Nft` There are other occupants who would rather be in a smaller building of
one or two stories and be able to come and go as they please, maybe a
seven day a week operation, flexibility of hours and don't want the
ancillary amenities to do that. To build a three story building and compete
with a much larger building, I can't afford to provide the same amenities
because I don't have the floor space. Because I don't have that flexibility,
I would like to build a building that serves a different market and a
building that could compete.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why can't you cater to the market that requires three and four
stories?
Mr. Frankel: Because across the street I'm going to have probably in the next two to
three years a 475-500,000 square feet building of the same type. I don't
think the market is strong enough to absorb all that. My building will not
be as big floor plate size.
Mr. Piercecchi: You say you are going to build west of Victor Parkway?
Mr. Stuart: No. Kojaian owns the parcel north of Vallasis and he is going to build
multi-story office buildings of a much larger size. South of Vallasis the
DeMattia Company is going to build a multi-story building. That is what I
am trying to say. When I add those two buildings together, that will be a
lot of similar product coming on to the market at the same time. I want to
do something that is a little different.
Mr. Piercecchi: My major concern is that by allowing this type of variance it is
really out of character with that property. We zone certain things and we
try to keep it all in one unit. I was reading about an ancient city in Malta
how when they came in to design their buildings and they came in with a
cross pattern, and they put industry here and residential there, tall
buildings here and low buildings there, and that is basically what we have
here. There is a reason to having this type of property. Your OS is going
to be completely out of character. There is a lot of OS property in
Livonia.
Mr. Frankel: I'm not familiar with how much OS property is in Livonia, I am just
saying that since we first purchased the property, we have made proposals
to four different potential users and all of them wanted a one story
building. This is the location they would like to be in because of the
quality of the neighborhood, and this is the type of operation. In all of the
,...., letters that you read from the people across the street, they will confirm
15983
that it has to coincide with the architectural character of the neighborhood.
I am prepared to do the same brick and the same landscaping criteria and
the same parking lights as everyone else. I just want to develop a different
product. It will not be out of character structure-wise, it will not be out of
character architecturally-wise. It may be out of character height-wise. It
will be out of character height-wise because I want to cater to a different
market.
Mr. Piercecchi: What if someone wants to come into Livonia and wants to build a
high-rise building? There are not too many spots left in Livonia with PO
zoning.
Mrs. Koons: What is the square footage of the building you are proposing?
Mr. Frankel: Between 65,000 and 70,000.
Mrs. Koons: In your presentation to us, you said there is a type of tenant that wants a
one story building. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Frankel: There are a number of corporate users that may be automotive related, that
may be service related, that are more comfortable in a one story building
because of the functional use and a floor plate of 50,000 to 60,000 sq. ft.
on one floor as opposed to 20,000 sq. ft. in vertical floors. We have built
multiple buildings of one story in the Rochester area, Auburn Hills area
and Farmington Hills area. You are catering to a whole different market.
A multi floor building caters to more professionals: lawyers, accountants,
financial service industries. One and two story buildings are more for a
corporate facility that they are comfortable in. You can drive out M-14 for
example and see many corporate facilities that have its offices in a one
story building.
Mrs. Koons: You are thinking of a single tenant?
Mr. Frankel: Yes. Signature tenant, single tenant.
Mr. LaPine: You bought the property in 1997 and at the time you bought the property
you were aware it was PO-I zoning. Is that correct?
Mr. Frankel: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: As you well know, we have a Master Plan in the City of Livonia, and
Victor Corporate Park is an area that we feel is a jewel. For many, many
years we fought to keep that as high-rise office because we thought that
was what we would want along the expressway. We deviated from that
plan quite frankly when we rezoned some property to C-2 which is in
15984
litigation right now. We have an opportunity here now to get all the high-
rise that we want because now there is an opportunity that people want to
build in this Corporate Park. For us to deviate now from what we
originally zoned for that area, so we would have one big area for high-rise
office, I think is doing a disservice to our Master Plan. I can understand
what you are saying There probably are people out there who would like a
single story building on an OS piece of property, but there is a lot of OS
property around the City and maybe that's where this type of building you
want to build should be built. In my way of thinking, we should not
deviate from what we have fought for over the years. This property has
been here a long time, and Mr. Johnson sat on it for years and years and
years and came in with many plans that he wanted us to deviate from our
Plan, but we held our ground. You use the argument that there is OS on
Pembroke, but that's not part of the Victor Corporate Complex. This is. I
don't think it is fair to ask us to deviate from what we have fought to keep
over the years.
Mr. Frankel: Without being argumentative, I just want to make a comment. Whether I
build one story or three stories, the square footage of the building will be
within 10% either way because it is a function of parking. If I build
65,000 sq.ft. on one floor, or 22,000 sq. ft. on three floors, the bulk of the
property will be used for parking because I need to satisfy the parking
requirements you set in your ordinance. What I am saying to you is that I
can come in within 5%to 10% of the same square footage and the same
density that I can build whether I go to one story or three stories. I am
going to give you the same quantity very close. I am also going to give
you a different user that may not want to come to the City of Livonia
because there may not be a site that suits his personal type of satisfaction,
and he may go to another community. The second question. Yes, I am in
Victor Corporate Park, but I also bought up the property that is not part of
Victor Corporate Park. The property that I bought up to which is
contiguous, is not three story office, it is single story office. I am more
closely related to that environment than to the people across the street who
are the multi stories. I know how much time Mr. Johnson has in Victor
Corporate Park, and how dear this project is to him. I went to him before I
even came to this City to seek rezoning, or what I thought would be a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and I got his support. I have
done this with the support of the property owners across the street who
have made a big investment, and they feel that this is not jeopardizing the
integrity of their property, it does not jeopardize the value of the property,
and they think it will be competitive and will be a good neighbor.
Mr. Hale: How will the rental rates for this single one story differ from the others in
the surrounding areas. I would think it would be less per square footage
because you don't have to amortize the amenities.
15985
Mr. Frankel: We hope we will be a couple of dollars less than what the competition is
across the street.
Mr. Hale: To me, it comes down to if there is a need for that particular use in that
area. How have you studied that? Do we know that there would be a
need for that particular type of signature tenant in that area?
Mr. Frankel: When I first acquired the site, I engaged the services of a brokerage firm to
do a site survey for me to find a site for me that I thought would be
suitable for a single user corporate type of use. They surveyed the market
as to what was available, what the environment was in relation to what the
zoning of the adjoining properties were. They thought this was the best
choice of anything I could buy in the western part of the area. We have
had four proposals already. We have met with them and done layouts and
floor plans and elevations. We think there is a huge market.
Mr. Hale: Is there a market for high-rise in this particular parcel? Are you of the
opinion that if you build a high-rise there, you are not going to be able to
satisfy the need?
Mr. Frankel: What I tried to say is as follows: There will be two competitors who will
be building directly across the street from me who will be building high-
rises. I don't think my building will have the same ambiance and the same
character as those two buildings. I think that the users who want to go to a
high-rise facility will gravitate to those two buildings first, and I think I
will be in a second class position and not competitive. What I don't want
to do is build a building that will not lease. I want to build a different
product, cater to a different corporate user and still protect the integrity of
what Victor Corporate Park is all about.
Mr. Hale: You don't see it as inconsistent with the surrounding area.
Mr. Frankel: No, not at all.
Mr. McCann: I don't believe Mr. Johnson has any property interest in that parcel or area
any more, does he?
Mr. Frankel: Since the day that I got the letter, he has sold his interest.
Mr. McCann: I am taking a little different tact than the other commissioners on this. We
are going to deal with the same square footage . Is there any type of
compromise? When we look at an office park like this, because being all
PO, you have five and six story buildings and you have good separation.
The footprint of the building is much smaller in the land use because of
15986
the parking requirement. If you just went to a two story, the footprint of
your building would be half the size as it is there. If you went to a three
story or a four story, it would be a quarter size of the footprint, and for
driving through the Victor Corporate Parkway it would create I think
because of the high trees, less of an impact. Is there some kind of in-
between that you could work with between a six story and a one story?
Mr. Frankel: The first problem is, I am only required to build three stories, so the
compromise is from three stories to one story. I was told the building
across the street is going to be three stories. I am asking to build one or
two stories. I don't know that, Mr. McCann. I would have to think about
that. All I can say to you is that the ordinance allows me to build three. I
want to create the flexibility. To deviate for a minute, at Halstead and the
Expressway, on the south side of the Expressway, about eight or nine
years ago I bought it for a single purpose. I put a sign on it and I know I
was going to get a single corporate user. About a year after the sign went
up, I made a deal with Bill Valasic food operations world headquarters for
170,000 sq. ft. They wanted to be all by themselves. This was a two-story
facility. That's the type of user I want to put here. This is not going to be
a building that has ten 6,000 sq. ft. users. It is not laid out that way. This
is the home of a principle tenant who occupies some 80-85% of the
building and will grow into the last 15% of the building in the next three
to five years. There is a huge demand for that type of building. I would
have to look at a compromise.
Mr. Piercecchi: You say across the street is going to be a three story building?
Mr. Frankel: I have been told that DeMattia's is going to be a three-story building.
Mr. Piercecchi: You wanted to compete, there you go. There will be a three story
building right across the street.
Mr. LaPine: My understanding is that if you build a one story, you have a corporate
user that is going to take all the space. Is that correct?
Mr. Frankel: I am going to build for a corporate use. That user may not initially occupy
all the space. It may occupy 50,000 sq. ft. and may need expansion at a
later date.
Mr. LaPine: You are building the whole building at one time?
Mr. Frankel: But I will not build it until I get the corporate user.
Mr. LaPine: If that corporate user takes 80% of the building, will you lease out the
other 20% or save it for him?
15987
Mr. Frankel: I will possibly give the tenant the right to expand that space.
`air' Mr. LaPine: Let's assume that corporate user after five years decides that building is
too small and he moves out. Is that building constructed in such a way
that you can then lease it out to four or five or six different users?
Mr. Frankel: Any building that has a user that occupies two or three floors can be cut
up. The answer is yes. We are not going to have interior corridors. We
will have front entrances and rear entrances. To be honest with you, it is
possible, but my desire is no.
Mr. LaPine: Nobody stays nowadays for any length of time. They get a better deal
down the street, they move.
Mr. Frankel: That is not necessarily true anymore because the cost of relocation is so
expensive. They would like to find a home and stay there for a long time.
Mr. LaPine: But there is that possibility.
Mr. Frankel: The answer is yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
,` Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-2-1-2 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#3-38-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
March 24, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-2-1-2 by
Realty Development Company requesting to rezone property located on
the east side of Victor Parkway, north of Pembroke in the NE 1/4 of
Section 6 from P0-1 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-2-1-2 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That a change of zoning is not needed in order to develop the
subject property in an office mode in accordance with the recommendation
of the Future Land Use Plan;
2) That the proposed change of zoning would allow for building
heights that would be out of character with existing and proposed
developments in the Victor Corporate Park; and
3) That the regulations of the POI zoning classification pertaining to
setback requirements and lot coverage limitations afford greater
15988
opportunity for the preservation of the natural features of the site as
opposed to development under the proposed OS zoning classification.
'.. 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. 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 98-2-2-4
by James K. Wegerly on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use
approval to operate a carnival consisting of amusement rides and game and food
concessions from April 23, 1998 through May 3, 1998, inclusive, in the parking
lot of Wonderland Mall located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated March 3, 1998
stating the Engineering Division has no objections to the proposed Rotary
Club Carnival at Wonderland Mall. It should be noted that nothing for the
carnival should be set up in such a way as to cause a limited sight distant
problem for vehicles pulling out of Wonderland Mall onto Plymouth
Road. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a
letter from Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal, stating they have no
objection to this proposal. There is a letter from John B. Gibbs, Police
Officer of the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to the site plan
as submitted. We also have a letter from the Inspection Department
stating that providing that a minimum setback of 25' is provided, the
Inspection Department would have no objection to the proposal. That is
signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. That's the extent of
our correspondence.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Nowak, in our Study Meeting we talked about that setback being
increased to 35' or 40'.
Mr. Nowak: The minimum setback requirement that the Inspection Department is
requiring is 25', but you can increase that if you felt it was necessary.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is going to be 40'.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
15989
James Wegerly, 3041 Serenity Road, Oakland, Michigan, and Rod Gafney, 36135
Jamison, Livonia, Livonia Rotary Club: The setback is variable. It will be
whatever you folks would like it to be. There is of course a natural
setback from Plymouth Road with the sidewalk and grass. There is also a
berm between the sidewalk and the parking lot. We can easily come back
in 25'. While I don't know the exact measurement of the grass area and
sidewalk, I did stop by this evening to see it and it looks to me that it is
about 25' as is naturally.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would 40' be a problem for you?
Mr. Wegerly: No, I think we can do that. The facility itself lends itself very well to an
event of this nature. There is plenty of room there for us. We certainly
could come in 40' if that would make everyone more comfortable.
Mr. LaPine: According to the letter we got from Pugh Shows, they say the security for
this event is going to be provided by the Wonderland Mall security force.
Are they going to hire some additional security people to take care of the
shows, or is this the same security force they have for the whole shopping
center?
Mr. Wegerly: Wonderland Mall informed me when we negotiated to being there that
",r„ they are looking at this as being a promotional thing and they indicated
that they are going to have their security force handle the security. I think
their intention is to have some overtime and have extra people on staff to
handle this.
Mr. LaPine: So to the best of your knowledge there will be no full time police officers
or our auxiliary police officers at this location. It will be all done by
Wonderland security.
Mr. Wegerly: Yes, and Wonderland had taken that approach as they did not want to
impose on the City's force. They thought that their security force would
be adequate to handle it. I know there is the auxiliary police force here in
Livonia. We would welcome their presence.
Mr. LaPine: You can have them as long as you pay for them. Mr. Gafney, is that the
way the Rotary Club has handled it in the past, did you use any Livonia
security?
Mr. Gafney: I don't believe we did.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-2-2-4 closed.
15990
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#3-39-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
March 24, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-2-2-4 by
James K. Wegerly on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver
use approval to operate a carnival consisting of amusement rides and game
and food concessions from April 23, 1998 through May 3, 1998, inclusive,
in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the NE
1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-2-2-4 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by the
Livonia Rotary Club which are April 23, 1998 through May 3, 1998,
inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area
as described on the site plan submitted with this request;
3) That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment
and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at
,— least 40 feet distant from the Plymouth Road right-of-way line; and
4) That all trucks and trailers and all other related transportation
equipment or apparatus shall be parked or stored within the southwesterly
portion of the Wonderland Mall parking lot, but no closer to the south
property line than 100 feet.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not
interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not
impede access to Wonderland Mall; and
4) No objections have been received from any reporting City
department.
r..
15991
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with
the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am very satisfied with an approving resolution for Pugh because
they have served the city well through Spree for the previous three years,
and their contract was renewed for another three years, so obviously they
are an asset for this type of activity to our great city.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-2-5
by Westborn Market of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
SDM (packaged beer & wine) license for a market on property located on the west
side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Linda venue in the NE 1/4
of Section 23.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have no correspondence on the item.
Gregory Mlynarek, attorney for Westborn Market: With me is one of the owners, Mr.
Jeff Anusbigian, and I also brought along the beverage buyer, Mr. Scott
�.. Bigery. The Westborn Market has been around close to 30 years. They
have their original site in Dearborn, a second site in Berkley and this will
be their third store. The proposed store is approximately 33,500 sq.ft. The
waiver that we are requesting involves an SDM beer and wine license, the
same type of license that they have at their other locations. They have an
outstanding record of compliance with the L.C.C. They have no history of
violations. The main thing I want to emphasize is that the shopping
experience at Westborn Market is basically to provide upscale produce,
upscale meats, upscale deserts and upscale wines and beers. The idea is if
you want a gourmet meal at home, you can walk into their store and get
everything you need.
Scott Bickery, 23110 Park Street, Dearborn, Michigan 48124: Beer and wine is an
integral part of our market. Certain things that will be provided in the
market require alcoholic beverages for recipes like veal marsella. We
have different wines available that are not available in the area. More and
more the premium wines have been going up due to this. The jug wine
end of the business, which your larger chains are pushing, is pretty much
out, even at the loss of sales.
15992
Mr. McCann: Everyone's concern is that there are six locations within a quarter of a
mile. What is the special need here? Why does the consumer need more
beer and wine at your place?
Now
Mr. Bickery: You have to look at the focus of the various locations. The beer and wine
licenses that are already in existence are tried in with a drug store, a major
chain store with Farmer Jacks. This is a unique facility. The emphasis in
our store is produce and meats and wine is just another added feature to
that whole concept. We are looking to provide a service that is unique to
Livonia. My clients have family to this area and they believe that what
they have is different than what is currently available in Livonia. If you
have been to any of their other stores, you can see the difference. When
you walk in, everything about the store is different. It is more of a
European market concept than of a Farmer Jacks. They don't carry dry
goods like Farmer Jacks or canned products. They don't carry drugs or
anything that you may buy at an Arbor Drugs. It is not a package liquor
store where you would go into their store for just a bottle of wine or beer.
They are a family-type store. They try to create the ambiance where when
you are there, you walk around with a cup of coffee and you basically
shop around for everything you need for a quality meal. We believe that
wine is an essential ingredient for that.
Mrs. Koons: You talk about your wine selection and the service. Are you talking about
the service selection or is there actually service associated with that
selection?
Mr. Mlynarek: What they have there, you won't find in the other markets. The emphasis
is on different brands, different quality of wines. They will feature
different types of products there that you wouldn't find at a Rite Aid,
Arbor Drugs or Farmer Jacks.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Esther Zalewski, 15210 Middlebelt: I want to say that Westborn deserves every chance
to get this license. They have a super, super store in West Dearborn, and it
would really be an asset to Livonia to have them have a complete store
like they are looking for. I really think they should have their license. It's
a wonderful store.
Mr. Mlynarek:There will be service with the wine, and the type of service that will be
available will be provided by the staff to help people select the proper type
of wine with the proper foods. In the past, some of the things that
Westborn has done is to have a wine tasting party. They invite the
wineries to come in. Those kinds of things is what helps in going out to
15993
actually select what they are going to feature in the store. The floor space
is going to be around 300 feet out of 33,500 feet, so you can tell that it is
not going to be a high profile feature when you walk in the store. What
New you are going to see when you walk in their store is produce.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-3-2-5 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Hale, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
March 24, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-3-2-5 by
Westborn Market of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize
an SDM license for a market on property located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Linda Avenue in the NE
1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-3-2-5 by Westborn Market of Livonia,
Inc. 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 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 proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
standard set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) with respect to the requirement
that there be at least a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed
establishments;
3) That this area of the City is currently well serviced with SDM
licensed establishments; and
4) That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a need in the
area for additional sales of packaged alcoholic beverages such as are
permitted by the utilization of an SDM license.
Mr. Hale: I would like to comment on the fact that we are very happy that Westborn
is coming to the City. I live in that area, and I look forward to shopping
there. My concern with this is that it does not represent a strong need for
Westborn. I think Westborn has its strength in other areas and therefore I
will support the motion.
Mr. LaPine: I can't support the motion. A lot of the arguments being set forth here is
the fact that we have so many beer and wine stores within 500' or 1000'
separation. I would say that probably 80% of all the convenience stores,
15994
food stores, some of the Kmarts, some of the bars, all sell beer and wine,
and I would say probably 70% of them are within 500' of each other. I
`40,,, believe that Westborn has made a substantial investment in the City of
Livonia and you sure can't say that the Discount Pop store, the 7-Eleven
store, the Mid-5 Party Store and Stables Bar has the investment that these
people who came into the city and put into that area. I don't believe that
even at your big grocery stores, beer and wine sales are not their primary
sales, the same as these people. It doesn't seem fair not to give them their
beer and wine license when we have 7-Eleven stores and Discount Beer
and Pop stores. We all want them to succeed. I don't think that if they get
it or they don't, it isn't going to make them or break them. The people
who go there and want to by beer and wine because it's convenient for
them. I think it is good for them and for the store and therefore I can't
support this motion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I appreciate Westborn coming in here too. The point here is that it
doesn't even comply with our zoning ordinance. Granted, there are some
that aren't 500' apart. That has nothing to do with us. We are not going to
predicate our decisions today on errors in the past. I don't think this is
necessary. We already have, as was pointed out, this body supported a
denying motion where we would have three SDMs within 8/10ths of a
mile, and here we have six of them within a quarter mile radius, so for just
consistency we ought to support this. I don't think it is a necessary feature
`.. for this store. With 90 other SDMs, I am sure the uniqueness of the wines
and the gourmet foods can certainly be satisfied.
Mr. McCann: We all have our own opinions, but I looked at this one a little differently.
It is for the uniqueness, the purpose for requesting this, is the reason I
would be in favor of it. You look at Farmer Jacks, Arbor Drugs, 7-Eleven,
Discount Pop, Mid-5 Party, Stables Bar, those are basically places where
you are going to pick up your Buds or your basic wines. What they are
doing here is that they are buying wines that are not available to these
types of stores. They are trying to be an upscale produce. They are not
competing with the Kroger or the other large Cosco-type markets. They
are trying to be upscale, fresh produce, fresh fish, fresh meat market where
you are going to go and buy something for a special meal and have a total
shopping experience like Vics, or you want a better wine to go with what
you are doing and really isn't being served in that corner of the town. We
have some excellent wine stores in Livonia on Plymouth Road. One of the
largest wine cellars in Michigan is in Livonia. At this point I feel that
since it is unique in purpose, it is only about 300 sq.ft. out of 33,000 sq. ft.
shows the size of it, but I think it can be beneficial to the store and to the
area, therefore I am in support of it.
,... A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
15995
AYES: Piercecchi, Hale
— NAYS: LaPine, Koons, McCann
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. McCann: The motion fails. A new motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#3-40-98 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
March 24, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-3-2-5 by
Westborn Market of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize
an SDM license for a market on property located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Linda Avenue in the NE
1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-3-2-5 by Westborn Market of Livonia,
Inc. be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
`.r 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 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Hale: I would like to make a response, particularly to the comments made by
Mr. McCann, that I understand it, this will be an SDM license, not limited
to the sale of wine only. I don't see anything prohibiting Westborn to also
selling beer at some point in time, therefore I will not be supporting the
approving motion.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Piercecchi, Hale
ABSENT: Alanskas
15996
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 98-2-3-1
by William Wright requesting to vacate a 10 foot wide surface drainage easement
on Lot 45 in Thomas F. O'Connors Parkview Acres located on the east side of
Floral Avenue south of Curtis Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated February 24, 1998
stating they have no objections to the proposal. That is signed by David
Lear, Civil Engineer I. That's the extent of our correspondence.
William Wright, 18000 Floral: I want to build a garage and do some improvements, put
in a pool and to do that I need that vacating.
Mr. McCann: This drain no longer functions according to the Engineering Department
since a 42" storm sewer was constructed in the area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
',R.. Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-2-3-1 closed.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, supported by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-41-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on March 24, 1998 on Petition 98-2-3-1 by
William Wright requesting to vacate a 10 foot wide surface drainage
easement on Lot 45 in Thomas F. O'Connors Parkview Acres located on
the east side of Floral Avenue south of Curtis Road in the SE 1/4 of
Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City council that Petition 98-2-3-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the Engineering Division has no objections to the proposed
vacating;
2) That the subject easement no longer functions for drainage
purposes since the drain fro which it was established to protect is no
longer in existence; and
3) That the area covered by the subject easement can be more
advantageously utilized if no longer encumbered by the subject easement.
15997
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Item#5 has already been withdrawn. I made the announcement earlier. Is
there anyone here on Preliminary Plat approval for Merriman Forest
Subdivision?
Seeing no one, Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with the Miscellaneous Site
Plans.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Allied Signs, Inc., on behalf of Kmart, requesting approval
for signage for the store located at 30255 Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlbelt
and Milburn Avenue. They are requesting a new sign package for this
store. They are allowed one wall sign at 490 sq. ft. and one ground sign at
30 sq. ft. What they are proposing is five wall signs and one ground sign.
Because the sign package is non-conforming, the petitioner first had to go
before the Zoning Board for a variance and what is before you tonight is
what was granted by the Zoning Board. They are proposing a new logo
big K wall sign over their entrance, 230 sq. ft., a"Pharmacy" sign located
•r.. on the north elevation towards the east corner, 51 sq. ft., and a"Penske
Auto Service" sign on the north elevation, 108 sq. ft.. The total of the wall
signs would be 652 sq. ft. They are also proposing a new ground sign
which would be 48 sq. ft. in size and 10' high.
Mr. Nowak: We have no correspondence on this.
Randy Schmitt, Allied Signs, and Lou Buckton, Kmart: This is a complete revision of the
signage at the site currently. Mostly everything we are doing out there is a
replacement to the current Kmart signage that is there, the old turquoise
and red K, long outdated. The Big K logo is at all the re-do locations. We
currently have another location in the City that has been updated very
similar to this. Some of the points to hit on is the actual net reduction of
square footage on both the main wall sign and the main pylon sign. The
existing pylon sign is 35' overall height and that sign will be completely
eliminated and the monument sign put in its place in a better location.
Mr. LaPine: You now have a garden shop. I notice your new signs - is there no longer
a garden shop at that location?
Mr. Buckton: There is a garden shop, but the Zoning Board denied the request.
15998
Mr. LaPine: I can understand the Big K sign on the Plymouth Road side. Why do we
need a Big Kmart sign on the east elevation?
Mr. Buckton: Because of the traffic pattern coming from the mall. As you know, we are
not attached to that mall.
Mr. LaPine: I understand, but when I go to Wonderland Mall, I say I am going to the
Wonderland Shopping Center. I don't say I am going to Kmart. I know
the Kmart is there. Most people do. I just wonder why we have to have
so many signs. You have five signs there. You had five signs there before,
but the square footage has increased considerably. When you had "Auto
Service" it was two 62 sq. ft. signs and now it is 126 sq. ft. and 108 sq. ft..
I understand that now Penske has his name up there and it makes the sign
longer, but it just seems to me that we have a lot of signage. We have 652
sq. ft. plus 48 for the ground sign gives us 700 sq. ft. When the Target
store was in here for a new sign and Service Merchandise, we made them
bring their signs down in relationship to the building. We thought the sign
was too big. Now it seems to me we are increasing signs. It kind of
boggles me. Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but that is the way I feel.
For instance, on Plymouth Road you have Penske Auto Service, but
actually the auto service is on the east side of the building. Why do we
have to have that on the front of the building when the auto service is in the
back of the building?
Mr. Schmitt: The Penske Auto Service is really a separate entity for Kmart and that will
be their sole identification. If only left just on the bay side, it really has no
benefit for anyone other than when they get around the corner. There
would be no identification that there is auto service at that location.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with Mr. LaPine that it seems like there are too many signs
on this building, but in reality it is only 9 sq. ft. over what they currently
have. I don't really have any problem with it, especially when they are
going to take down the pylon sign.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#3-42-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Allied Signs, Inc., on
behalf of Kmart, requesting approval for signage for the store located at
30255 Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
15999
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Allied Signs, Inc., as received
by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1998 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond 10:30
p.m.
As well as subject to the following additional conditions required by the Zoning Board of
Appeals:
1) That the existing pylon sign is to be removed;
2) That the new ground sign shall be located at the east entrance of
the site.
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
Petition 96-4-8-5 which received site plan approval to construct a gas
station/convenience store on property located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the
NW 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Middlebelt
Roads. On June 4, 1996 they received site plan approval to construct a
new service station and convenience store on the site. At that time the
convenience store was more of an hexagon shape at 2,916 sq. ft. They
would like to revise the plan and construct a new more conventional store
on the site. The convenience store would be located more to the middle of
the site under the pump island canopy and would be 2050 sq. ft. This type
of building would require 15 parking spaces, and the plan shows 16.
Landscaping requires 15% and the landscaping plan shows 25%, so they
exceed the landscaping requirement. The building elevation plan shows
that the new station convenience store would be a combination of glass,
brick and dryvit along the front of the building. Also we have a
conforming sign package submitted with this proposal. Over the station
entrance, you have an"On the Run" sign. On the right side elevation you
have a Pizza Hut sign on the building, and two existing signs on the canopy
will remain as will the wall sign on the car wash. The ground sign is
conforming at 30 sq. ft.
Bob Knowis, Patterson Construction Company, representing Mobil, 330 E. Maple, Troy:
We were approved once for a larger building. We re-looked at our
16000
building program and liked the look of this building better. It's a better fit
for the site.
r..
Mr. Hale: What nature of outdoor storage are you planning at this facility?
Mr. Knowls: We have the current storage shed located in the back. All the other storage
will be inside.
Mr. Hale: You will not have any outside displays of oil, that type of thing?
Mr. Knowls: It is against the city ordinance. I noticed driving by tonight that there was
some windshield wiper solvent out in front and I told Mobil to remove that.
Mr. Hale: So no outdoor storage except in this shed?
Mr. Knowls: Yes. The idea is that we are building a nice building and we don't want to
block the nice view.
Mr. LaPine: The sign that says "On The Run", what is the color combination?
Mr. Knowls: It's a yellow color that they call curry, teal which is called crystal blue, and
a magenta color which is a maroon. These three colors are the Mobil
trademark for "On The Run".
Mr. LaPine: The Pizza Hut sign, that is 3'x4'x2'. The pizzas that they sell there are
frozen pizzas, is that right?
Mr. Knowls: They are a pre-packaged pizza dough which goes through what they call a
flash bake. It comes out in about four or five minutes. It's put in a box
and they put it on a hot hold tray so that when the customer comes up, they
can purchase one on their way out.
Mr. LaPine: So they are pre-packaged and you just heat them up.
Mr. Knowls: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: In regard to this outdoor storage, you say you will not ever put
anything on those islands because our ordinance does permit certain things
on those islands.
Mr. Knowls: As I read it, Mobil is not allowed to put anything on the outside. Certainly
Mobil wouldn't want to be at a competitive disadvantage to all the other
service stations that do store things outside, but as I understood the
ordinance, you could not store outside. If it is the case that Mobil can, and
16001
in the event that they get a shipment of something they have no storage
space for, it would be nice to have that as an option.
'r..
Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance does permit oil products.
Mr. Knowls: You mean out at the islands. I thought you meant out in front. Yes, we
would want to continue that. There is a rack right near the front door
where you can get that, but I wouldn't want to give up the possibility if
they did want to run a special for some Mobil One product.
Mr. LaPine: Is this a 24 hour operation?
Mr. Knowls: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of security do you have there? The attendant is there inside the
building 24 hours a day and he is on his own?
Mr. Knowls: All of the Mobil company stores in the Detroit area have a series of
cameras. In fact I believe as many as six at some of the stores. The person
coming in front will be immediately on video. Behind the transaction
counter will be pictures and also the ones that have car washes will have
one set up where they can watch the car wash as well. Where it is
demonstrated there are higher instances of crime, we have a bullet
resistance counter.
Mr. LaPine: We don't have that at this one?
Mr. Knowls: I don't believe so.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak on this item.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am making this motion because I think the revisions are a better fit
for the site. They are reducing it from about 2900 to 2000 sq.ft., there will
be more landscaping around the site, we have brick around the canopy
columns and I think these are all assets. There is a nice enclosure around
the dumpster.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#3-43-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revision to petition 96-4-8-5 which received site
plan approval to construct a gas station/convenience store on property
located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 1 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
16002
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet CE-1 prepared by The Building
r.- Design Group, as received by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1998
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the brick used in the construction of the station/convenience
store shall be full face 4"brick;
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by The
Building Design Group, as received by the Planning Commission on March
10, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5) 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;
6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A6 and
A7 prepared by Wolfgage Doerschlag Architect, as received by the
Planning Commission on March 10, 1998 are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
r..
7) That the columns that support the gas pump island canopy will be
replaced or covered with the same brick used in the construction of the
station/convenience store;
8) No outdoor storage, placement of display of merchandise shall be
permitted at any time on this site, however the foregoing prohibition shall
not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil based products as
permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance;
9) That the window signage for the station shall be limited to what is
permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading(g) "Window
Signage";
10) That the Sign Package as shown on Sheet SN-1 as received by the
Planning Commission on March 10, 1998 are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16003
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Revision to
petition 94-12-2-36 by Archie's Restaurant which received waiver use approval to
�.. expand the building and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located at 30471 Plymouth Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: Archie's is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt
and Milburn. In May of 1995, Archie's received waiver use approval to
expand the building and increase their seating capacity. As part of that
approval, City Council made the following condition: "That this approval
is contingent upon acquisition of the necessary right-of-way by the city for
the realignment of Milburn Avenue with Sears Drive at the intersection of
Plymouth Road for the owners of the properties affected. Further, the
Council hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the
Board approve the elimination of the east driveway and landscaping in that
area." At one time the City was trying to acquire this property so that they
could align Milburn with Sears Avenue. If that did happen, the City
wanted Archie's to connect into Milburn so that there would be two
ingress and egress. The realignment is not progressing at this time. The
petitioner is requesting that they retain their easterly drive in front of the
building. On July 25, 1995 the petitioner received a variance for deficient
front yard setback because the ordinance does not permit the expansion of
a nonconforming building. As part of the approving resolution it was
conditioned that the petitioner is to close the existing easterly curb cut,
remove the parking from the front of the building, and return the area to
landscaping, including irrigation.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do we have a fully landscaped plan in the area where the parking is
to be removed?
Mr. Miller: No, not at this time. All we have is a letter from the petitioner, no site or
landscape plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would suggest that if an approving resolution is made an
amendment that a fully detailed plan be submitted to us at a specific date.
Toma PalushaJ: I am one of the owners of Archie's. You were talking about a landscape
plan. There was one submitted when we got the approvals and it was
approved and the landscape is already completed with irrigation and
sprinklers and all that. We would like to keep the driveway open because
right now as it is, the deal with realigning with Milburn did not go through,
so to close this driveway, we would be left with one driveway. If a truck
or car broke down there, it would put us out of business for an hour or so
that is why we are requesting that we be allowed to use that drive.
r..
16004
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you saying that in reference to the landscape plan that the
original landscape plan that was submitted back some time ago has not
been modified and still complies?
Mr. Palushaj: Yes. It is completed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Scott just said there is no landscape plan.
Mr. Miller: There was an original landscape plan because there was landscaping areas.
I thought maybe it was delinquent.
Mr. Palushaj: No. The landscaping has been finished there.
Mr. Piercecchi: So that criteria has been satisfied then.
Mr. Nowak: We do have an approved landscape plan that was approved with the
original approval. It shows landscaping directly in front of the building and
the driveway. It doesn't show the parking which presently exists at that
location in front.
Mr. Palushaj: There is no parking there now. Some people still put their cars because we
haven't put "No Parking"there. There is really no room to park there now
because we came out another 8' from the building. That is already
r..
landscaped.
Mr. LaPine: If we see fit to approve this and let you keep the easterly driveway with the
condition that in the future if the city is successful and able to purchase that
land so that we can align the roads, we may bring you back and at that
point we may want you to close that. You understand that?
Mr. Palushaj: I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Mrs. Koons: It is my understanding that you have to have two entrances.
Mr. McCann: Under the ordinance, yes. He needs the ingress and egress, however, the
variance that he has to build the building up front was under the condition
that the drive be removed and the blacktop filled in with a greenbelt area.
Al, now he is back here before us, isn't he supposed to be back before the
ZBA too?
Mr. Nowak: I think because this is a waiver use, it comes to us first and then the ZBA.
Is that your understanding Scott?
16005
Mr. Miller: Yes. We decided because we didn't know which way you would go, and
since you started with us with the original waiver use, you would start with
Planning and the last step would be with the Zoning Board.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Palushaj got caught up in something that was out of his control.
Mr. Miller: Right. At one time the street was going to be straightened out.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this item.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#3-44-98 RESOLVED that, the city Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revision to Petition 94-12-2-36 by Archie's
Restaurant which received waiver use approval to expand the building and
increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located at 30471
Plymouth Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That Council Resolution #326-95 be amended to allow the retaining
of the east driveway;
2) That no parking shall be permitted in this area and the existing
parking spaces shall be removed;
r..
3) That if the necessary right-of-way for the realignment of Milburn
Avenue with Sears Drive is obtained by the City of Livonia the issue of a
drive connecting the restaurant's property with Milburn Avenue shall be
revisited with the petitioner.
For the following reasons:
1) That two drives would conform with the zoning ordinance which
requires a restaurant to have available at least two separate driveways from
a public street.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This petition will go to the Council with an approving resolution, however,
contact the Planning Department tomorrow as you may need to go to the ZBA prior to
going to Council.
This concludes the site plans and we will now go to pending items. All items have been
discussed at length at prior occasions. Any discussion will need the concurrence of all
members of the Planning Commission.
16006
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Motion to hold
a Public Hearing to consider the vacating of a 10 foot wide surface drainage
easement on Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, and Lots 46 through 49, inclusive, in
Thomas F. O'Connor's Parkview Acres located east of Floral Avenue and south of
Curtis Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. McCann: This is the Planning Department's own housekeeping motion. This is a
motion to hold a public hearing to notify all residents.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#3-45-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held
to determine whether or not to vacate a 10 foot wide surface drainage
easement on Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, and lots 46 through 49, inclusive,
in Thomas F. O'Connor's Parkview Acres Subdivision located between
Floral Avenue and Deering Avenue, south of Curtis Road in the SE 1/4 of
Section 12.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
New-
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 Landscape Plan
in connection with Petition 97-9-2-25 which received waiver use approval for the
Navin Oaks Condominium Development located on the east side of Farmington
Road between Norfolk and Fargo Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This development is located on the east side of Farmington Road between
Norfolk and Fargo Avenues. They received waiver use approval in
October 1997 to construct a cluster housing development. As part of that
approval, a landscape plan was tabled for further review and
recommendation. The petitioner has submitted a new landscape plan.
There is a berm area along the rear of the site fully landscaped with
deciduous trees and pine trees. Also along the north property line to the
rear, this landscaping is continued. There's no berm in this area but the
same type of trees will be continued in that area to help buffer the condos
to the north. In front is a landscaped area in the boulevard. There are also
deciduous trees and pine trees throughout the development to make it
more of a neighborhood type of development.
16007
Sam Baki, 36700 Seven Mile Road, Livonia: Petitioner for this project. I have nothing to
add.
Theresa Fredericks, 33333 Norfolk, Livonia: My husband and I own a condominium unit
in Pinebrook Condos directly to the north of this proposed development.
We approve of the proposed landscape plan, but we are concerned because
trees were cut down that were not supposed to be cut down. We want to
be assured that this will be done and we would like to have a performance
bond to assure that this landscaping will be put in. We know it can't be
done right away because the structures have to be completed.
Mr. McCann: You would have to go to City Council in order to request a performance
bond. The Planning Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council. I think you will have to go on to City Council when they hear it.
If there's is a question as to the density or the location of the plantings, that
we can deal with.
Mrs. Fredericks: We are content with the plan as it now stands, but we understand that
they can't put in the landscaping until the structures are completed and we
just want to be assured that that landscaping is placed in there, particularly
on the north side.
Mr. McCann: The Building Department, with regard to Occupancy Permits, is part of
that process, and again I would suggest that you contact the Planning
Department during the normal business hours and they can direct you.
There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item.
Mr. Piercecchi: I believe this is a comprehensive plan and it obviously satisfies the
abutting property owners.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
#3-46-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 97-
9-2-25 which received waiver use approval for the Navin Oaks
Condominium Development located on the east side of Farmington Road
between Norfolk and Fargo Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 3 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SE by Amit Land
Surveyors, as received by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
16008
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.
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 Approval of the
Minutes of the 759th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on February 24,
1998.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#3-47-98 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 759th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 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 Sign Plan for
Petition 97-5-8-11 (Doyle Signs Inc.) for the Walgreens Drug Store located at
17700 Middlebelt Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This is the Walgreens store that is located on the corner of Middlebelt
Road and Six Mile Road. They are requesting a sign package that has five
wall signs. They are allowed one wall sign at 143 sq. ft. so the sign
package is nonconforming, therefore the petitioner had to be granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He is on the Zoning Board
agenda tonight and hopefully he has received the variance.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? (no) The Zoning Board meeting could
go on for another hour. I think we should wait for it at this point. This
item will remain on the table.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think we are doing the petitioner a disservice at this point because
he has those two banners up there.
16009
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 761st Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on March 24, 1998 was adjourned at 9:15 PM.
v..
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
LL 3L
Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
r-
ATTEST: (. -_..
(armes McCann, Chairman
du
v..
r