HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-03-28 17615
MINUTES OF THE 803rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 28, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
803rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Michael Hale William LaPine
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Members absent: Robert Alanskas Elaine Koons
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Bill Poppenger, Planner I
and Robby Williams were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten
days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption.
The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions
upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-02-01-02 Leo Soave
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-01-02 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between Blue Skies Drive and Glengarry Drive in the N.E. 1/4 of Section
7 from R-3C to OS.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2000, which
reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
17616
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We
rw would like to point out that any change or modification of the Seven Mile Road
drive approach will require the approval of Wayne County." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: I did receive an E-mail from a Mr. Thomas Curtis and a Ms. June Curtis
objecting to the rezoning as well. They give their address as 18634 Susanna
Drive. Is the petitioner here this evening? Please state the reasons for your
petition.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Michigan. As you know the area east of 1-275 and Seven Mile is
65% to 75% office, or commercial. I have owned this property for 25 years
and in 25 years, not one person or one potential buyer has come out to ask if
they could build a house on this property. Most of the offers have been, "can
we put an office on there or can it be used as commercial?" The adjacent
house we bought about two months ago on the corner of Blue Skies and
Seven Mile has been used for commercial for approximately the same time.
As a matter of fact, the State Highway Department used that house as their
field office while I-275 was under construction. The lots on the west side of
Blue Skies and Seven Mile fronting Seven Mile are highway frontage
owned by State Highway Department. The traffic count on the east side of
I-275 and Seven Mile is approximately 25, 917 every 24 hours. Across the
street from the project we plan on doing there is a proposed office building
of 66,000 sq. ft. That could be a two or three story building. All I know is
what the sign says. Our building is 5,900 sq. ft. That is our proposal. With
the traffic count and our proposed use for that building, we propose to use it
as a builder's office. Our car traffic over there is going to be maybe from 15
to 20 cars a day. I have a site plan here I would like to show to the
Commission. Our building proposal is for 5, 912 sq. ft. Our parking space
required is 24. As you can see, we want to put in some mature trees on the
south side of our proposed building. We would like to keep those deciduous
trees as high as the neighbors want. If they want 24 trees, we will plant 24
trees. We've got a greenbelt going all the way across the rear of the building,
all the way across the west side of the building and on the north side. Our
berm proposal is going to be anywhere from two to three feet. If they want a
higher berm than that, we'll do that. We've got a dumpster pad over here, we
show it but we don't need a dumpster pad. We are going to use an inside
rubbish compactor. On the north side of the building it is a simple gable
roof and we've got a nice gable in the front. We can have brick all the way
up to the cable, if the Commission wishes. On the west side, which is the
Blue Skies side, its all brick. We have two double gables and if you have
any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
`"w Mr. LaPine: You said you were going to use this for your building?
17617
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
�.. Mr. LaPine: You told us you were going to use the building on Plymouth Road behind
Pella Windows. Your office was going to be in there in that building.
Mr. Soave: I figured you were going to ask me that question. That is a building behind a
building and our secretaries were going to have a hard time working behind a
building. We are still going to build that building, but half of it is going to
be for windows or storm doors, or storage for building products. Not as an
office.
Mr. LaPine: The building to the east of you, the house that is there, is that being operated
now as an office?
Mr. Soave: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any reason why you can't build a residence on this parcel?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. As I said, I owned the property for 25 years and in 25 years we
offered to get a build job and we haven't had any takers.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is a residential area, as you know Mr. Soave. I wonder, are you aware
across the street the Oakwood Healthcare lawsuit ensued sometime ago?
The consent judgment put 5.65 of OS property across the street from you.
Are you aware of that?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: So there certainly won't be a shortage of that. Plus there is one house in
there and you can really abut up against some really fme homes. I have seen
you build houses in areas like that before. Perhaps what you have there now
isn't saleable but you build a nice piece of property. Your residential homes
are fine. I think if you built two houses in there, if you want to take that one
down on Blue Skies at the corner there and put another one next to it.
Obviously the neighbors think that is a pretty good idea too.
Mr. Soave: I was installing the rezoning sign and I was there for 45 minutes. In 45
minutes three cars used that driveway on the corner house as a turn around.
To build a brand new structure in there on both of those lots I think I would
be taking a gamble. I have been doing this for a long time and I think I can
spend money better somewhere else. I'm sorry.
MR. Piercecchi: There were some lots on Eight Mile Road that I thought would never be sold
either and to put homes on it. By golly somebody came along and built
some beautiful homes up there right on Eight Mile Road. They sold almost
`'" immediately.
17618
Mr. Shane: A question for the staff. What does the future land use plan recommend for
this property?
Mr. Taormina: Low density residential.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. I see a large number of people. We've all gotten the letters in our
packets for tonight's meeting to review. I think I've got a good grasp of
everybody's opinion as to this project but if you have a spokesman, that
would be great.
Westin Morris, 18850 Nola. The question I have is, if the zoning is approved, we hear what
the potential uses are for this property, my concern is I have seen things
move in, in different areas and the zoning is approved for a certain use and it
is described for a certain use and people say "I can live with that". That
property is then sold later and a different use is what it ends up being used
for which is not nearly as palatable as what it starts off with. My question is
what is, what are the potential future uses if this is rezoned according to the
request?
Mr. McCann: It would have to stay within the OS unit that can be a multiple of things.
Mr. Taormina: The principal permitted uses in the OS district would include general office,
professional office or medical office. As a waiver use the district permits
such uses as banks and credit unions, real estate offices and insurance
offices.
MR. McCann: Under just OS it would be either medical or professional service only? Not
a waiver use?
Mr. Taormina: Professional and general office, primarily.
Michelle Man, 18824 Blue Skies Street. Initially I would like to submit a packet of a signed
petition to deny this proposal that I was able to put together in just the last
couple of days. It was by no means a total sweep of our neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: We understand. As a matter of fact I have talked to several neighbors. I
knew there was a petition circulating and I think we all have had some
conversations regarding this petition. Do you have a number of names that
you gathered that signed the petition?
Ms. Marr: Yes. I would like to go over some of my concerns about this petition with
you. After having spoken with so many of the neighbors, I think I have a
good representation of what their concerns are. As residents living nearby
this property in question, we ask you to deny this petition for a number of
obvious reasons. First off, it would be unsightly. This commercial business
would be located at the only entrance to Melody Manor and that is one of the
17619
primary entrances to Caliburn Manor situated directly between them. It
seeks to tear down a beautiful modern house in favor of a large parking lot
rr.. and business building which we will have to drive past every day. Despite
the paltry attempt to landscape the proposed project, the truth of the matter is
that this commercial building would be built right up against Ms. Canada's
property line to make enough room for that big parking lot and to say that the
passage of this proposal would de-value her investment and dramatically
decrease the most important joy she has left. In case you are unaware, Ms.
Canada has hit by a drunk driver in 1981 and is a quadriplegic. The care
arrangements for her are quite complex and as such she was unable to attend
tonight's meeting. It would decrease the most important joy she has left, the
enjoyment of her yard and the quiet of her home. The type of lighting that
goes hand-in-hand with commercial businesses and parking lots, would be an
infringement on the tranquility of our neighborhood and the addition of
dumpsters for trash removal and the increased visitation to the site by
employees and customers would add undesirable noise, smell and sights to
our homes. Increased traffic in and around our neighborhood would be
inevitable with this proposal. While the drawing shows that this commercial
business would have its only entrance on Seven Mile, the reality of living in
our neighborhood dictates that this will lead to increased traffic and a safety
hazard for the homeowners and the children who walk and play in the streets
of Melody Manor, as our neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. Business
traffic will inevitability flow onto Blue Skies as that is where the traffic light
is located and people always prefer the street with the traffic light. We have
s... substantial traffic problems resulting from the opening of Victor Parkway to
Blue Skies Street as it is and the creation of a business at the mouth of our
neighborhood will only exacerbate those problems and make our streets
increasingly unsafe. In addition, the proposal is simply inappropriate. This
is a cohesive residential community that has already suffered from the
repaving of I-275, which heightened the existing freeway noise levels, and
from the loss of residential homes on the north side of Seven Mile and the
extensive commercial development happening at a frightening pace on the
north side. We have huge commercial buildings standing vacant in Victor
Park. At the same time they are building even more office space. So to
build a business inside our own neighborhood is simply unnecessary and
utterly unforgivable. We will not stand for it. Perhaps most importantly this
proposal will devalue our residential property. No one can deny this. Once a
piece of land has gone commercial, there is no going back, ever. Only one
person stands to gain from this proposal and that is Mr. Soave. The
premiums he will receive for changing this property from residential to
commercial will be at the tangible expense of every tax paying, voting
homeowner in our neighborhood. His profit will be our loss in every sense
of the word. Lastly, I just read an article in the Detroit Newspaper about
Livonia's concern that the dwindling population that City officials expect to
be shown with Census 2000 will substantially reduce the funding Livonia
receives from the federal government. Let me tell you. This type of spot
rezoning is exactly what makes homeowners up and leave. Property owners
who are abused in this way will find greener pastures in which to invest their
residential and retail dollars. Still, my husband and I are hoping to live the
17620
next 50 years in our house on Blue Skies. We found a one in a million
home, carried for lovingly for more than 40 years by the original owners
`.. from whom we bought it directly. Our house was never on the market for a
single day. We consider ourselves its caretakers rather than its owners.
Therefore, the decision you make regarding this matter will effect us for
decades to come. This proposal benefits only one person while taking away
so much from everyone else. Please vote no. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I think for the record I have passed around up here, we've got a petition with
95 signatures and the petition states: "We the undersigned property owners
formally request that the City Planning Commission in the City of Livonia
deny Petition 2000-02-01-02 by Mr. Leo Soave to rezone lots 2 and 3 in
Melody Manor Subdivision from R-3C to OS.
Tom O'Connor, 18789 Nola, Melody Manor. I probably have more experience than anyone in
this audience with respect to Melody Manor as I grew up in that subdivision
from 1965 and presently own a home at 18789 Nola Drive. I've seen a lot of
change over the years with respect to the expressway being put in and with
all the commercial development being put in. As a matter of fact, I
frequently run through the neighborhood up and down the side roads and
Seven Mile Road and to be honest, I have never seen a "for sale" sign in
front of the petitioner's home that he allegedly has tried to sell. As a matter
of fact, I have noticed that there were three or four lots that were recently
sold and brand new homes put up on them just east of this property, right on
.,` Seven Mile Road at Seven Mile Road and Fitzgerald on the north side.
Those homes were sold fairly quickly and there still remains a lot to be sold
there. I did not submit a letter to you but I did sign the petition. I wanted to
be here in person to share my concern over this proposed rezoning. I just
wanted to reiterate, and if you don't mind, I want to pass around a document
asking you a few questions that reiterate what Michelle indicated. I did
some research with respect to the number of square feet within just one mile
of this proposed rezoning. I would ask you, is it reasonable to rezone two
residential lots adjacent between two other residential lots to the east and
south, to change the Master Plan over 40 years old from residential to office
when there is already three million square feet of office space within one
mile of the proposed rezoning with over half a million sq. ft. available or in
the process of being built? Secondly, is it reasonable to further increase
traffic at Seven Mile and Blue Skies with nearly 500,000 sq. ft. being built
and about to bring about, if not hundreds but thousands of cars to the light at
Seven Mile and Blue Skies? Thirdly, is it reasonable to increase the danger
of the children, the residents and the individuals utilizing the sidewalks and
roads at Seven Mile and Blue Skies? Fourth, is it reasonable to devalue the
property surrounding the petitioner's lots, the remaining homes in Melody
Manor and I think with the turnout you have here this evening, that the
resounding unequivocal reasonable answer to these questions is no. I trust
you have considered these issues already in your decision whether to rezone
or propose to rezone this or not and hope that you will definitely elect not to
\"' rezone it from residential, which it has been for a number of years, to office.
Thank you.
17621
Carl Zager, 18583 Glengarry, Caliburn Manor. As the former treasurer of the Caliburn Manor
Homeowners Association, we also would like to ask that the Planning
Commission turn down this request. Some of the reasons, many of them
have already been stated, in addition, some of the traffic concerns have
already been brought up but I would like to point out that we actually had
additional stop signs added within our subdivision to control the cut-through
traffic that is already occurring to avoid the Seven Mile and Newburgh light
when it gets very crowded. In fact, if you look at the plans in place, there is
approximately 100 feet from making a left hand turn out of the proposed
parking lot to the light position. That is certainly a very short distance. We
feel a lot of people will be making right turns, going down Glengarry, across
on Margareta and back out at the Blue Skies light to exit that facility. So
certainly this adds additional concerns for safety for the children in the area.
Concerns we have already tried to address with the additional stop signs. I
think the amount of land has been brought up but I think another point we
would like to bring up, Mr. Soave pointed out the attempt to sell the property
numerous times. I believe just the land itself was up for over $60,000 so one
of the concerns is whether it was attempted at a reasonable rate for the area.
I think this committee has pointed out already that similar lots on Eight Mile
have turned into very nice homes and I assume very profitable homes at the
time they were sold. In closing, I just wanted to state that Livonia has a very
well deserved reputation as one of the leading planned communities in the
Detroit area. We certainly have a very strong reputation for the way that our
r.. planning has taken place. We would like to ask that this committee consider
the impact, consider what advantage this office building would provide to
the neighborhood that it is going to be residing in. Thank you.
Lorra Yost, 18464 Glengarry, Caliburn Manor. I am also the secretary of our homeowners
association as well as a realtor and my concern, as most of the other
residents, and that would be the devaluation of our property and how that
would become affected. I am pretty sure anybody in this room would
understand that to build a new house or to purchase a new house, no matter
where you are whether it be Wayne County or Oakland County is very very
expensive these days. Our concerns are that we will not have the value left
in our homes. That will be absolutely necessary for most of us in the
situation that we are currently in here and to have talked about the aesthetics
of our neighborhood or to keep it a neighborhood with our families and to
feel safe and good, is a major concern for us and we ask that you consider it
carefully and understand what our choices are to live in this subdivision and
how much it does mean to us.
Ron Debono,18320 Glastonbury, Caliburn Manor. I am the former president of the
homeowner's association in Caliburn Manor. I am also the parent of two
small children and I am mostly concerned about the traffic in the
subdivision. My house is the corner house that borders Caliburn Drive and
we experience a high number of cars going through there and as Carl Zager
indicated, stop signs were required to be put in because of the high rate of
speed that cars obtain along that thoroughfare. I believe that this proposal
17622
would exacerbate that problem and there are a large number of young
children in that subdivision and I think it would pose a great threat to their
Vmy safety as well. Thank you very much.
Rebecca Peters, 18813 Glengarry. I was the former vice president of the Caliburn Manor
Homeowner's Association. I thought I would step up for the same reasons
that have been mentioned before; safety, concern for our neighborhood, for a
lot of office and industrial areas. We feel that our little corner of the world
would be better off if it stayed residential. I would like to have my vote
heard. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave, I will give you one last word. Do you have anything else you
would like to say?
Mr. Soave: No sir.
Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I must confess, when I came here tonight I was going to move to table this
motion because the sign posting was violated. It required 15 days and it was
only posted for 3 days but apparently it only took 3 days for the neighbors to
express their opinion.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#3-57-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-01-02 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between Blue Skies Drive and Glengarry Drive in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 7 from R-3C to OS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council that Petition 2000-02-01-02 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed rezoning is not compatible with its surroundings;
2) That the proposed rezoning will have a negative affect on property
values;
3) That rezoning this property to OS does not comply with the Master
Plan;
4) That the proposed rezoning is not necessary to further develop the
property;
5) That the proposed rezoning will cause unnecessary traffic on Blue
Skies; and
6) That the proposed rezoning requested is a prime example of spot
`"� zoning at its worst.
17623
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with a denying resolution so you can check with
'to. Council when they will be holding their hearings on this.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-02-01-03 Leo Soave
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-01-03 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Clarita
Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue (29705 Clarita) in the
N.E. 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-1.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, dated March 8, 2000, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal. The following legal description should be used in
connection therewith: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of
Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, excepting the North 30.0 feet thereof
*ft., Also excepting the East 125 feet thereof Please be advised that the legal
descriptions contained in the petition reads as, "...excepting the East 12.5 feet
thereof" Has been corrected in this letter to read, the East 125 feet thereof as
shown on the attached legal from the City's records." The letter is signed by
John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. The reason I am seeking to rezone this property is on
the north side we've got R-7. On the south side we've R-1. On the east side
we've got R-2. Typically, R-2 is 8,400 sq. ft. Lot 1, as proposed, is 22,500 sq.
ft., and Lots 2 and 3 are each 19,500 sq. ft. If this petition is approved, we
would like to build three homes. On Lot 1, I have not yet checked the
feasibility of keeping the house there or not. If it looks O.K., I am going to
keep it. If it doesn't, I am going to demo it. That is why I am making Lot 1 75
ft. wide. These homes will sell for about $225,000. They would be 2-1/2
bath, four bedroom homes. Thank you very much. I'll answer your questions.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to
the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Raymond Gawel, 29725 Clarita. I am the neighbor on the west side. The only thing that
bothers me is that when the sign came up for the rezoning, it said lot 60 ft. X
17624
120 ft. The property is approximately 200 ft. X 300 ft. but I understand he is
only putting up three lots. Is that correct?
`1 .
Mr. McCann: That is my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Soave?
Mr. Gawel: It is going to be 75 ft. X 300 ft.?
Mr. Soave: The reason I did that is R-1 is minimum 60 ft. X 120 ft.
Mr. McCann: What he did was he put down what the ordinance minimum requirements were
on the sign.
Mr. Gawel: The sign was taken down. That was what bothered me.
Mr. McCann: What will happen, we will probably have a tabling motion on this because the
sign has to be up for two weeks and it wasn't there so we will probably table
this before we take action on it. It was up for 10 days, wasn't it?
Mr. Nowak: The sign was up for about 7 days.
Mr. Gawel: O.K. So the lots will be 75 ft wide by 300 ft. deep?
Mr. Soave: One lot is 75 ft. X 300 ft. and the other two are 65 ft. X 300 ft.
NNE. Mr. Gawel: The one that is next to me that the house is on 75 ft. wide? O.K. Then I have
no objection.
Mr. McCann: O.K. So the sign was up for a week. Is there anybody else wishing to speak
for or against this petition?
Mr. LaPine: Leo, are these going to be all brick homes?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: If there is nothing further, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#3-58-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-01-03 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Clarita
Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue (29705 Clarita) in the
N.E. 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-01-03 be approved for
the following reasons:
`�- 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area;
17625
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
`.y character of the area;
3) That the proposed zoning district will allow a reasonable development of
the subject property into single family residential lots; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of an existing
zoning district occurring on adjacent property to the south.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion? If there is none, I have a comment. I think R-2 would be
appropriate but one of the lots is R-2, the 75 ft. and the other two are so close
and they have such tremendous depth that I think they are appropriate and will
make a nice addition to the area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-02-02-05 Fulcrum Real Estate, L.L.C.
(Wintergarden Tavern L.L.C.)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-05 by
Fulcrum Real Estate, L.L.C. on behalf of Wintergarden Tavern, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to expand the liquor license serving area in an
existing building located on the Northeast corner of Seven Mile Road and
Farmington Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first one is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated February 23, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal at this time. The following legal description should be used in
conjunction therewith: Lots 76 thru 81, except the South 9.60 feet thereof,
Westmore Subdivision, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,
Michigan as recorded in Liber 48, Page 85, Wayne County Records. And
Lots 87 and 88, Westmore Subdivision, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia,
Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 48, Page 85, Wayne County
Records" The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The
second item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2000,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 28, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) As
existing, the bar alone would require approximately 32-33 parking spaces
with 60 existing seats and 2-3 employees. (2) The additional space, as part
17626
of the bar, with no seating would require no additional parking. As a stand
alone billiard room it would require 3 parking spaces for each table or as a
stand alone game room 1 parking space for each device. Therefore, we
request a plan as to the exact layout, type of entertainment units and amount
of entertainment units. We would then be able to determine the
requirements. As a bar/restaurant or as a billiard room; and also the
parking requirements. (3) As existing, only 7 of the parking spaces are
properly sized (4) Parking spaces listed as 27 and 28 may not be on
Petitioner's property. The legal description provided on the site plan does
not include lot 74 or 75. That surface area is gravel, at best. (5) There are
no parking grants or waivers in either the Zoning Board of Appeals files or
the Inspection Department's history file. (6) The parking lot currently
needs maintenance, repair and/or replacement and new double striping. (7)
The aisle spaces(s) as depicted are deficient of the required 22 feet. (8) The
front brick porch/guardrail to the bar is falling apart and in a state of
disrepair. There is debris around the permitted non-conforming pole sign.
There is also trash and debris in the landscaping. (9) At this time it cannot
be determined exactly what variances the Petitioner may or may not need.
This Department has no objection to the petition except as noted above." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third item of
correspondence is from the Division of Police, dated March 9, 2000, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed Site Plan and have the
following recommendations and comments: The parking requirement (with
calculations based upon only two employees)per city ordinance is 38 spots
with two handicap spaces. The current site plan shows 28 parking spaces.
Parking space "22"as indicated on the site plan is not a usable parking space
due to the fact that should a vehicle park in space 22 the vehicle could not be
moved should another vehicle park in space 23. In addition, space 22 could
not be used if a vehicle were to be parked in space 23. Only seven of the
current spaces meet the requirements of 200 square feet and spaces 27 and 28
appear to be able to only accommodate compact vehicles. Under the current
site plan, the aisle width of the parking area east of the building is 17 feet wide
just north of Seven Mile Road and 15 feet wide just south of the alley. City
Ordinance requires a 22 foot aisle width in the parking area. We would
expect the pool hall bar to attract more patrons than previously when the
building was a carpet store. Parking is very limited and we would not want
the overflow parking to go onto the Westmore Street to the east due to the
numerous problems this would cause. Parking for the businesses near the
Wintergarden is also very limited. We do not recommend extension of the
parking variance." The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth item of correspondence is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue
Division, dated March 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to expand the use
of a Class C license to include property at 33326 Seven Mile Road on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
17627
Dave Hood, 33326 Farmington Road.
ti...
Mr. McCann: Tell us about your proposal.
Mr. Hood: The Wintergarden opened in 1933 and occupied both buildings as the bar. I
am here tonight to request permission to re-establish the license to its original
size and not for a new license. Back in those days, that was the downtown
area of Livonia. Since then, the street parking off the front of Farmington was
taken away and left this parcel with not enough parking. For two years we
have actively tried to lease the building with three different commercial
brokers and have had no luck. According to our interpretation of the zoning
book, a carpet store would require 16 parking spots which is what we are
asking for tonight with the pool hall. We decided to go with the pool hall
because we could use our existing business and expand into there and wouldn't
have the conflict of two businesses trying to get the limited parking spots
available. Since we've taken over, we've fixed up the building. As far as the
wall, the wall fell over. We believe it was vandalized by one the "ex" patrons
that aren't allowed in the bar anymore from the prior owners. It was done on
"devil's night". It was a loose wall to begin with and we just settled with the
insurance company on Friday. We also feel that if we put a game in there, it
is not really a pool hall, we are only looking to put five tables in. If it was a
normal pool hall, we would put in about 15 to 20 pool tables, to have
something for patrons to do instead of just sitting there drinking and watching
T.V. and eating. They would have something healthier to do, get up and go
next door and shoot some pool or play darts. Our hours of operation, we don't
open until 11:30 a.m. and open until midnight Monday through Wednesday.
We are only open to 2:00 a.m. on Thursday through Saturday. We are closed
on Sundays.
Mr. McCann: Did you purchase the house behind there with the new purchase?
Mr. Hood: Yes we did.
Mr. McCann: That was rezoned for parking?
Mr. Hood: Correct.
Mr. McCann: That was part of your proposal, to demolish the home and create additional
parking?
Mr. Hood: Not in this time frame. No. We are experiencing a financial hardship because
when the whole deal came as a package and was cross-collateralized. In order
to tear that building down, it all has to be paid off from the Lewis's that we
bought it from. Then we have to pay for the demolition and putting the
parking in.
�.. Mr. Hale: How do you respond to the parking deficiencies? If we give you this waiver
use, you agree that there are parking deficiencies that are going to apply?
17628
Mr. Hood: Yes.
Mr. Hale: How would you deal with that?
Mr. Hood: We are a neighborhood bar and a lot of our customers do walk there. I think if
the parking lot is full, I don't think that patrons would be coming there. So we
would let the market take its toll and encourage the people to walk, which is
safer anyway.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A follow-up on that and the neighbor's concern about parking up and down the
local streets. I was in the business for a number of years and there are certain
nights where you get packed. I have been in your tavern many times when you
are filled to capacity and if you have more room, people are going to come. It
is a parking problem for that whole corner. The thing I see about commercial
use is a carpet store or a professional office and that is that they are more of a
day time activity and you are more of an evening activity. You are competing
with Fat Willy's down the corner for parking spaces. Adding more tables is
going to draw more customers and create more of a problem in the evening,
isn't it?
Mr. Hood: I don't know. I think they could find other parking spots down over at the K-
Mart plaza and walk across.
Mr. LaPine: I am curious about one thing. You said you couldn't tear down the existing
home that we rezoned for parking until the whole building is paid off. I don't
understand that.
Mr. Hood: Yes. It is cross-collateralized. The deal was structured for the seller so that we
wouldn't tear down the house and they would get the building back because it
is on a land contract. He was afraid that if we tore the house down he would
get back a bar minus a tenant and the commercial building minus a house and
he would have zero income.
Mr. LaPine: If my memory is right, when he came in here for the rezoning of that property,
which there was opposition from some of the neighbors, one of the reasons he
wanted that rezoned because he knew when he sold that bar it was up for sale
because there wasn't adequate parking. He wanted that house so that the new
owners could tear it down and build parking there because he knew there
wasn't adequate parking. I am kind of confused here. I am not an attorney so I
don't really know. It seems to me if you own the building, you bought the
property, you should be able to tear it down and put up the wall and have
parking there. Am I right, Mr. McCann? You are an attorney.
Mr. McCann: He bought it on a land contract and they don't want any part of it being
`'�- demolished until the land contract is paid off.
17629
Mr. LaPine: So in other words, what we originally thought we were getting we didn't really
get.
New
Mr. McCann: No. They built it in so you can't do that.
Mr. Hood: I would like to make a point if I can. We didn't plan on this and we can't
afford it. We have tried to lease the building and we can't do anything else.
Second of all, it would behoove us to tear that house down as soon as possible
whether we went into that other building or not because parking is an issue. It
always will be. As we get better financially situated at that point, we could
probably get a mortgage through a commercial lender and re-mortgage and pay
the land contract off and then tear the house down and put the parking lot in
but right now we are bleeding. We are going under.
Mr. LaPine: Originally, you were before us and we gave you a variance to open some
windows because you had a lessee, a mattress company, I understand.
Mr. Hood: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I assume that fell through.
Mr. Hood: Yes it did.
Mr. LaPine: Is anything going on in the former carpet place. You've got white paper
covering the windows so I couldn't see what was going on in there. You've got
nothing in there right now? No pool tables in there?
Mr. Hood: Nothing.
Mr. LaPine: What is the age an individual can go to a pool hall, eighteen or twenty-one?
Mr. Hood: Twenty-one, in our establishment because we serve alcohol.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Mike Driscoll, 19229 Shadyside Street. I am very familiar with the corner and its history
over the past 10 years or so. There has always been a problem with the fact
that we have two liquor licenses at that corner. There is limited parking and if
there is a problem with the present owner's financial situation, I don't see really
where this is going to benefit it by going ahead and allowing them to put a
pool hall in. To increase traffic, to make suggestions that people should be
able to park at K-Mart's parking lot or maybe the parking lot on the other side
of Westmore, another strip mall there. At one point and time there was a
suggestion to move Fat Willy's liquor license over to the K-Mart shopping
center and that was shot down. If that had gone through where there was now
"�- only one liquor license at that corner, something like this would be a good
17630
thing to maybe do. I am against it at this present time since there is a limited
amount of parking and there is a second liquor there at the corner. Thank you.
Now
Mr. McCann; Mr. Hood, I am going to give you the last opportunity to speak. Is there
anything you want to tell us?
Mr. Hood: No.
Mr. LaPine: The Mansard roof you've got around there, half is green and half is multiple
color. Is there a reason for that? It is all one building. I know you put up the
multiple colors first and then a wind storm tore off some of the other roofing.
Why when you replaced it didn't you use all the same color?
Mr. Hood: Because the insurance company wouldn't pay for it.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: The Public Hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#3-59-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-05 by
Fulcrum Real Estate, L.L.C. on behalf of Wintergarden Tavern, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to expand the liquor license serving area in an
Now
existing building located on the Northeast corner of Seven Mile Road and
Farmington Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 3, the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-05 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 Section 18.38 of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to required off-street parking;
3) That the site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
4) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
5) That the lack of adequate off-street parking on the subject site will
overburden the adjoining businesses with additional traffic and will make it
necessary for vehicles to be parked within nearby public street rights-of-
way.
Mr. McCann: Is there discussion?
17631
Mr. Shane: I would like for the petitioner to know that if I could be assured that the
`N,., parking could be increased by the removal of that house, I would be more
sympathetic to what he wants to do. I certainly don't want to make a bad
situation worse and I would hope the City would take an opportunity
somewhere along the line here to try to come up with a comprehensive
solution for parking in this area for the long term. I sympathize with the
petitioner but the parking simply doesn't accommodate the use.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions or comments? Hearing none, I have one
comment, Mr. Hood. I have frequented your place on occasion. You say it is
almost a historic part of Livonia being there since 1933 and we would like to
help you but the use runs with the land. Should you leave, sell for whatever
reason and leave that business, whoever takes over that business is
grandfathered in with whatever we give you and the problem continues to
exist. No matter how many people he brings in or doesn't. So it would be
imprudent on our part to go ahead and make the situation worse.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
We have denied the petition. You have 10 days in which to appeal the
decision to the City Council.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-02-02-06 Toys "R" Us (#9265)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-06 by
Toys "R" Us (#9265) requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display of
playground equipment within a closed corral on property located on the North
side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville Avenue in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first one is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal, as long as the Easterly drive approach to the store is completely
barricaded. The following legal description should be used in connection
therewith: Lots 415, 417 and 418 except the South 27.00 feet thereof, also
except the East 250.00 feet of Lot 415, also except the West 100.00 feet of the
South 375.00 feet of Lot 418 of Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 7 as recorded
in Liber 66, Page 58, Wayne County Records, said plat being part of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,
Michigan." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The
second item of correspondence is a letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
17632
Division, dated March 2, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to display
playground equipment in a closed corral on property located on the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third item of correspondence
is a letter from the Division of Police, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the site plan regarding a proposal for waiver use
to display playground equipment in a closed corral. The site plan does not
address the current lighting. For security and safety concerns we would
recommend that the area be brightly illuminated. We have no other concerns
regarding this site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth item of correspondence is a letter from
the Inspection Department, dated March 9, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 29,2000, the above referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The parking lot is in need of
maintenance, repair and new double striping. The site needs a general
cleanup from blowing trash and debris. (2) As proposed this Petition will
need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the dates March 1St
through October 15th. Per Ord. 543, Section 11.03(1)(1), a temporary waiver
use is permitted from April 1"through October 1St. (3) This petition makes
no provision for the required barrier free parking. Requirements may be
obtained from the Inspection Department. (4) As proposed this Petition
blocks off Fire Department access to the front of the building. (5) This
Petition would also need a variance form the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
�.. deficient front yard setback and a fence in the front yard." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tim Preville, Toys "R" Us, 29150 W. Seven Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about your petition?
Mr. Preville: The petition is for an outside corral across the front of the building which right
now we have 14 parking spaces directly out front of our entranceway which
we would close off with this corral. It would still leave the accessibility along
the front sidewalk but no safety issues in that there would be no traffic flow
whatsoever across the front of the building which in years past was a safety
concern with the Council when we attempted to do an outdoor type proposal in
the past. We have looked at other options in which to do this sort of
presentation and yet be within the guidelines for safety issues as were stated by
the City Council members in the past.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: Having young children myself, I am a frequent customer of your store and the
question I have is, why is it you can't display by way of posters how this type
of play equipment looks on the inside?
17633
Mr. Preville: We do have the posters presently and the customers spending the amount of
'Now money that they are for a $500 or $600 gym set would like to see a little more
than just the poster. We do have the posters and we also have brochures that
we supply customers with, with each of these outdoor gym centers but you are
talking wooden structures that are selling for the sum of money I stated, the
customers would like to see exactly what it is they are paying for.
Mr. Hale: You are totally out of space in that building as it stands?
Mr. Preville: Yes. For that type of display without going to an outdoor presentation, strictly
for the spring and summer months, as indicated.
Mr. Hale: Have you thought about expanding the building?
Mr. Preville: No. I don't think the company has looked at doing that at the present time.
Mr. Hale: These are all wooden sets?
Mr. Preville: No. There are a number of structures. We have 10 different gym centers and
four of them are wooden structures. Four of them are wooden structures and
the others are metal structures.
Mr. Hale: These setups would allow customers, including children, to have free access....
Mr. Preville: They could actually walk in to view the structures but they would each have
safety type signage that would not allow a child to climb onto the equipment
and use it. There are safety features that would be on each of the gym sets.
Mr. Hale: Are you aware of any accidents that occur in that parking lot? Have you ever
witnessed any or heard of any at all?
Mr. Preville: No. None whatsoever.
Mr. LaPine: Last year you were before us with the same proposal except you wanted it on
the west side of the building and we thought that was wrong.
Mr. Preville: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I think this location is probably worse than the other one. You've got it in
front of the building and you are blocking off, in my opinion, a driveway
which means people have to come all the way over to the west end to get into
the store. Why can't you put it in the rear of the store? The back of your
building, you can have a door going outside. You can fence it in and if people
want to look at them, you have small displays there, then you can have a sign
saying that you have additional displays outside in the rear of the store.
17634
Mr. Preville: We are trying to draw traffic into our location and this is something for
someone shopping this type of product would be drawn by that type of display
`., out front.
Mr. McCann: Then it doesn't seem to be a problem for you to take all the handicap spaces in
front of the building and move them away farther so that the handicapped
people have to travel across traffic patterns to get to the entrance.
Mr. Preville: They would end up being the first spaces right outside out exit door which that
door can also be used as an entrance as well.
Mr. McCann: Isn't that your pickup and delivery area?
Mr. Preville: No that is not. Pickup and delivery is in the rear of the store.
Mr. LaPine: I thought that was on the side.
Mr. Preville: At one time, years ago, it was on the side.
Mr. Hale: How long have you been there?
Mr. Preville: I have been with that establishment for a year now.
Mr. Hale: Are you aware of any other type of Toys "R" Us facilities that display this type
of unit inside?
Mr. Preville: No, not indoors. All of our stores that have the outdoor presentations in quite
a number of cities would they display a presentation like what I supplied the
Council with the corral.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, what you are asking us to do tonight is to violate a provision of our
ordinance. For instance, Section 11.09 states in part, "no part of the minimum
required front yard in a C-2 district shall be used for either the storage,
placement or display of merchandise or equipment." That is what you are
using up.
Mr. Preville: On temporary various type of proposal is what I am asking for through spring
and summer, not on a year round basis.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't want to repeat what my colleagues stated, but I think this is the worse
spot too than what was proposed last year. Have you tried videos?
Mr. Preville: We don't have videos but we do have the posters.
Mr. Piercecchi: That would be an excellent way of showing your play sets, wouldn't it?
`"' Show people in action. It could be live. That is something you couldn't you?
17635
Mr. Preville: That is something we could look at, yes.
Now Mr. Piercecchi: As far as what you said about putting signs in there to keep children off the
equipment, signs aren't going to keep any children off the play sets.
Mr. Preville: They are a fixture that is attached to each of the individual swings themselves,
and the trapezes that are a part of these gym sets and so on. They are a safety
type fixture, that is not strictly a sign that says "stay off'. It is a fixture that is
adhered to the gym sets themselves.
Mr. Piercecchi: You stated also that you want traffic to see these things as they are going by.
Mr. Preville: Right. Within the area that we do business, it is not a really growing area and
we are trying to draw traffic into our store, by any means in which we can and
this is something through the spring and the summer months that people
shopping for this type of product want to see what it is they are spending the
money on.
Mr. Piercecchi: You don't think this is going to cause any traffic problems with cars coming
out of your place?
Mr. Preville: We still have the two drives that people can come in right off of Seven Mile
Road and that is not going to cause any traffic issues whatsoever.
r�.. Mr. Piercecchi: But people are going to be driving by looking at this product.
Mr. Preville: They would look at anything that is out there whether it is buildings or the
Toy's "R" Us gym sets, I don't think we are going to cause traffic accidents
with that type of display outdoors but it would attract anyone interested in
those type of items to come into our location to see what it is we have to
offer.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I wondered if you considered significantly reducing the side of this area and
perhaps display one representative type display space somewhere on the site
as opposed to a large area like this where it would be a lot less obtrusive and
easier to control and out of the traffic pattern and things like that?
Mr. Preville: That could be considered. We tried to represent each of the individual gym
sets in the proposal that we put together so that we carry so that we can show
our customers the assortment of products that we have to offer.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close the Public
Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
17636
#3-60-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
`„ Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-06 by Toys
"R" Us (#9265) requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display of
playground equipment within a closed corral on property located on the North
side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville Avenue in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-06 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 provisions of Section 11.09
which states, in part, that "no part of the minimum required front yard" in a
C-2 district "shall be used for either the storage, placement or display of
merchandise or equipment;
3) That the proposed use raises concerns relative to potential conflict between
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, particularly with respect to children;
4) That the proposed use would interfere with safe vehicular and pedestrian
'vow traffic access and circulation;
5) That the proposed use would constitute a traffic hazard and a detriment to
traffic safety by obstructing and/or detracting from the vision of drivers;
6) That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a need for outdoor
display of merchandise;
7) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
8) That the proposed use would not represent an aesthetically pleasing use for
a property abutting a major thoroughfare;
9) That this proposal makes no provision for the required barrier free parking;
and
10)That the proposed use would interfere with Fire Department access to the
front of the building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I do have one comment. One thing
that I saw tonight is that you do have a problem. Someone made the
suggestion that you look at the rear of the building. If someone is interested
and is willing to walk around back there and take a look at it, you could put up
a fence to secure it. It wouldn't interfere with your handicap parking. It
17637
wouldn't interfere with your entrance and exits and design of the building. The
only reason I could see for putting it up front is for advertising value. I think
`„ you are better off remodeling the store and making it look nicer rather than
putting things out front to try and attract people.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Your petition has been denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal it to the
City Council.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-02-02-08 Jeff Williams (Playworld
Unlimited/Rotary Club)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-08 by Jeff
Williams of Playworld Unlimited on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club
requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival consisting of rides, games
and food concessions from April 26, 2000 through May 7, 2000, inclusive, in
the parking lot of the Wonderland Mall located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section
35.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
h.. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal at this time. The legal description provided, and previously
approved by this Division, is acceptable and should be used in connection
therewith." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
The second item of correspondence is a letter from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to conduct
a carnival on property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) Provide
access for emergency vehicles and personnel. (2) Provide unobstructed
access to any hydrants within carnival area." The letter is signed by James
E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third item is a letter from the Division of
Police, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "After reviewing the
site plan as submitted in connection with a proposal for waiver use approval
to conduct a carnival in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall, the traffic
Bureau has no objections at this time." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth item is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated March 8, 2000, reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of February 29, 2000, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objection to this Petition from the time
17638
frame noted(April 26, 2000 to May 7, 2000)." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ron Gaffiiey, 36315 Jamison, Livonia. We would like to sponsor a carnival at Wonderland
Mall from April 26 through May 7.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: This is the first time since I have been on the board that we have seen this
Playworld Unlimited. Usually we have different carnivals come to town.
Could you give me a little background? How long they have been in business
and anything about them.
Mr. Gaffney: I have Jeff Williams from Playworld here.
Jeff Williams, 31250 Cooley, Westland, Michigan. I was with some of the other carnivals
that Livonia uses. Playworld has been in business 18 years in Michigan. They
are out of Alma, Michigan. They have the best record in Michigan from the
State Labor Commission Ride Division. It is a young couple that own it.
They are 38 years old. They started when they were 20. It is just a real sharp
operation, real clean.
'NowMr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Do you have any other carnivals that they are going to be doing in the next
couple of weeks in the area?
Mr. Williams: This will be the first one this season in this area. There will be one in Lansing
April 5 through the 9`h
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will
go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition?
George Kosnich, 11070 Hillcrest. If you look at your map, my house is on Lot 20. They are
right behind there. There is a field. That field is about 250 feet wide and there
is a wall. On the other side of the wall they want to put the carnival. There is
no barricade to stop cars from parking in that field and people will be parking
on Hillcrest, cutting through our backyards and ease way through that wall to
get into the lot, Wonderland parking lot. We are going to have a mess. Ten
years ago the city inspector made us tear up our vegetable gardens in our
backyards along that stretch where that field is because they claimed we
brought rats. If they are going to put a carnival up there, and sell hot dogs,
popcorn and everything else, what are they going to bring; deer, zebras,
giraffes? They are going to bring? They are going to bring a pack of rats in
there.
17639
Mr. McCann: We are showing the carnival out in front of Wonderland along Plymouth Road.
Not.__ Mr. Kosnich: No, this shows the carnival is behind there, sir.
Mr. McCann: Behind K-Mart?
Mr. Kosnich: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: No sir. That is where they are going to store the trucks when they are not in
use. The carnival is actually going to be out in the front along Plymouth Road
of where the old Service Merchandise used to be, right up against Plymouth
Road.
Mr. Kosnich: Back there is going to be their parking for their trailers and trucks?
Mr. McCann: When their trucks aren't in use. After they unload them, they are going to go
over there and park them. There will not be anybody living there. The trucks
will not be running. They will just be parked.
Mr. Kosnich: That is not the way I understood this was the way this was supposed to be
used. It doesn't show on this map that I have here where the carnival is going
to be.
Mr. McCann: We have the map up here and we have the description and that is what we are
'Nowallowing, only in front of the Service Merchandise and the parking lot in front
of the Service Merchandise area.
Mr. Poppenger: The red striped area on the map shows where the carnival will be and this is
Plymouth Road right here.
Mr. McCann: The carnival won't be near you. Everything else has to be self-contained.
That was our concern about Playworld because the City makes sure and the
mall, Mr. Lemke from Wonderland Mall, he is in charge when he leases out
the property to make sure they keep everything clean, that they clean up after
themselves when they leave because it is on their property. He makes sure that
they have the proper insurance certificates and everything else.
Mr. Kosnich: In other words, when they get done unloading the trucks to the carnival up
front, they are to put the trucks in that back area there. Is that correct? And
their people will be living there in their trailers?
Mr. McCann: No. My understanding is that they do not allow them, as part of our resolution,
to sleep in the trailers. Is that correct?
Mr. Kosnich: They usually come with their trailers, their motor homes. Could you bring that
sign over so I could look at it? I can't see from the side over here.
Mr. Williams: We will have our security people there over night in trailers, self-contained,
with 16 gallon tanks, bathrooms. Most of our workers we are going to take out
17640
to Belleville, to the Wayne County fairgrounds. We rent spots from the
Wayne County fairgrounds and they will come back and forth on a shuttle
�.. during the day.
Mr. McCann: O.K. But the security personnel would be back by the trucks?
Mr. Williams: Yes. To watch over them. That is their job, basically.
Mr. McCann: There are certain people that will be left as security personnel to watch the
trucks. They will be staying there and they will have a camper to stay there.
That will be to maintain the security of the vehicles while they are out there.
Other than that the other employees will be staying in Belleville and they are
bused back and forth on a daily basis.
Mr. Kosnich: O.K. This notice that I have here didn't explain that. According to this, the
carnival is going to be back behind the other side of the wall.
Mr. McCann: That is why we give notice to the neighbors to make sure they understand what
is going on. We are sorry that it is confusing but I think everybody that is
watching tonight will get a better idea of what is going on.
Mr. Kosnich: On the basis of that, I would have no complaint, as long as they just park their
trucks back there and that is it.
`. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Is there anybody else wishing to
speak?
Reinhard Lemke, Wonderland Mall, 29859 Plymouth Road, Livonia. If I may just add to the
general understanding of how we view the carnival. We don't see it as a
money maker. We see this as an opportunity as the City celebrates its 50th
anniversary this year to pass this money on to the Rotary and the Family
YMCA and to give something back to the community. Just to let you know
that this is the way we want to do it.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Thank you.
Earl Baker, 9971 Doris. My only objection to them parking vehicles in that area is number
one, again, I want to make sure they do not use this as a campground. We do
not need port-a-johns or any other type of living vehicles, like campers and so
forth, right behind peoples backyards. The thing that I am concerned about is
that the vehicles that are parked there that we do not expect them to be started
or run at 5:00 a.m. This has been a problem in the past where truck drivers go
back there and park and idle their trucks for hours overnight. If they are going
to park their vehicles there, I see no objection but I do not expect them to start
up their vehicles at 5:00 a.m. to get ready to unload or load the carnival
equipment and disrupt the neighborhood in that fashion. If they can do these
things at reasonable hours, that would be fme.
Mr. McCann: Can you address his concern?
17641
Mr. Williams: We are going to park the vehicles right behind K-Mart, at least 150 feet from
the property lines and we'll keep it quiet. We want to keep you happy.
Mr. McCann: So there is no problem that the trucks won't be starting up at 5:00 a.m.? If we
put a resolution in there that none of the trucks can be moved out of there
before 7:00 a.m., you would have no problem with that?
Mr. Williams: No. That would be fine.
Marvin Paulson, 30160 Orangelawn, directly behind the wall. My concern is the noise.
Before when they had a carnival there, people lived back there and there was a
great big urine specimen back there when they left. No one wanted to clean it
up and Wonderland Mall made a parking area back there and that was suppose
to be for additional parking during mall hours only. The gentleman who wants
to sponsor this, I would like to have him come and live in my house and I'll go
live in his house for the time that the carnival is there and he can live with the
noise.
Mr. McCann: That is one of the things that we are concerned about and Mr. Lemke from
Wonderland Mall is here. He is the mall manager and we have the person
responsible from the carnival and the Livonia Rotary club to make sure that is
not going to happen and we will put a resolution in that they are not going to
be operating the trucks between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Is that fair?
N.. Mr. Paulson: Yes sir.
Mr. Lemke: Just to add, we are always very concerned about the neighborhood. If you
should hear something that you don't like, don't hesitate to give me a call or
come to my office. We don't want to disrespect anybody. We just want to
contribute something to the City this year with the carnival and we felt
comfortable that this would be an area that wouldn't bother anybody. But if
you have any problems, don't hesitate to come over to my office.
Mr. Paulson: Do you have a business card? Where are you located?
Mr. Lemke: It is inside Wonderland Mall.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#3-61-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-08 by Jeff
Williams of Playworld Unlimited on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club
requesting wavier use approval to conduct a carnival consisting of rides, games
and food concessions from April 26, 2000 through May 7, 2000, inclusive, in
the parking lot of the Wonderland Mall located on the south side of Plymouth
17642
Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section
35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Nifty Petition 2000-02-02-08 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Playworld
Unlimited, which are April 26, 2000, through May 7, 2000, inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
illustrated 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
60 feet distant from the Plymouth Road right-of-way line;
4) That all trucks and other transportation-related vehicles and equipment and
temporary housing quarters for security personnel only shall be parked or
stored within the southwesterly portion of the Wonderland Mall parking
lot, but no closer than 200 feet from the adjacent residential properties to
the south;
5) That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. including motors on any
refrigeration trucks;
6) That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter
'410.
dated February 15, 2000, from Jeff Williams, Routing Director of
Playworld Unlimited, which have been approved by the Police
Department; and
7) That unobstructed access to any hydrants within the carnival area be
provided for the Fire Department.
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 the Wonderland Mall; and
4) That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use.
Mr. Shane: I would like to consider altering item#5 to make that between 9:00 p.m. and
`- 7:00 a.m.
17643
Mr. LaPine: I've got no objection to that.
___ Mr. Shane: 11:00 p.m. is a little late.
Mr. LaPine: But the carnival doesn't close some nights until 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. That
is the reason I think that is in there because they are open to 10:00 p.m. April
26, 27 and 28, and 11:00 p.m. on April 29 and 30`h. But I have no objection.
Mr. Shane: But to store the trucks, will they be operating that late?
Mr. McCann: Let's ask the petitioner. What about the trucks? Is there a need from 11:00
p.m. or 9:00 p.m.?
Mr. Williams: Once the trucks are stored back there, that will be no problem.
Mr. McCann: 9:00 p.m. is fine?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: If the maker of the resolution would also consider a revision to item#4 that
would limit the temporary housing quarters to security personnel only as stated
by the applicant earlier this evening.
Mr. LaPine: No problem.
Mr. McCann: I want to clarify that with them because sometimes security personnel is that
there are certain residents that will just agree to stay there and watch it. Do
you have regular security personnel staying there?
Mr. Williams: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: O.K. No problem. If there is no objection, then we will limit that to security
personnel.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. I
have been advised by the Council that you requested a waiver of the 7 day
rule. Mr. Taormina advises me that the Council says that it will benefit them
and that the Council is not objecting to it.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was
#3-62-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-02-02-
__ 08 by Jeff Williams of Playworld Unlimited on behalf of the Livonia Rotary
Club requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival consisting of rides,
17644
games and food concessions from April 26, 2000 through May 7, 2000,
inclusive, in the parking lot of the Wonderland Mall located on the south side
`.. of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-02-02-10 Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-10 by
Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a full service restaurant to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road east of Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description contained therein." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item of correspondence is a
letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2000, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a full service restaurant on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If subject building is to be
provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency vehicles with
turning radius up to forty-five feet wall to wall and a minimum vertical
clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The third item is a letter from the Division of Police, dated March 6,
2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans for the
petition indicated above and have the following concerns: The current plan
calls for a seating capacity of 292 seats. The plan does not indicate the
number of employees, which is also necessary in determining the correct
number of parking spaces. Based upon the seating capacity only, 146 parking
spaces and five handicap spaces are necessary to comply with the ordinances.
The site plan shows the required handicap spaces (based upon seating
capacity) but there is only70 parking spaces. Additional parking spaces above
the 145 will be necessary when the number of employees is known." The letter
is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
17645
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Nifty Ben Tiseo, 33150 Schoolcraft, Livonia. I am here representing Logan's Roadhouse
restaurant. I have to apologize for Mr. Don Howell who flew in from
Tennessee to be here tonight. He has taken quite ill. He called me earlier
tonight and said "Ben, can you attend the meeting?" I am here but what I can
do, I have been talking with Mark and I basically their local representative
here in Michigan. I am an architect in Livonia and we are following some of
the plan reviews and the permits for three of their stores that they plan in
Michigan. One being in Livonia, another one in Southgate and the third one in
Canton that is going through the approval process right now. I'll help you with
what I can.
Mr. McCann: Do you have some colored elevations?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes I do. They over-nighted some colored elevations, a sample board, as well
as some other documents pertaining to the screen wall around the building.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything you can tell us about the typical layout for Logan's?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Logan's is a national restaurant chain. They are headquartered out of
Tennessee and they do have a local store in Troy.
Mr. McCann: Could you explain to us the type of materials that are going to be used?
Mr. Tiseo: Here is a sample board that would give you a better indication of the actual
materials.
Mr. McCann: Why don't you set that up against the wall and explain that to us.
Mr. Tiseo: The building is predominately brick in nature.
Mr. McCann: That is full 4-inch face brick?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. It is a full 4-inch face brick. It also has wood siding as another material
and wood trim around the windows and also the wood is around the parapet.
There is some awning material that is corrugated metal. It is a more of a
stylized design with the restaurant itself.
Mr. McCann: The wood trim around the windows, can you explain about using wood as
opposed to other materials for durability?
Mr. Tiseo: It is their signature. Their design, giving it a rustic western look. Hence the
roadhouse kind of look. That has been their trademark, to have that kind of
look.
Mr. McCann: All right, thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the Logan's restaurant basically a steakhouse?
17646
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. That is my understanding. I apologize that I don't know the ins and outs
*Ne , of the corporation or the restaurant. I'll do what I can about answering that but
that is my understanding. As a matter of fact, as part of the information that
was turned in there was a menu that was turned in with this? Did you receive
it?
Mr. McCann: No we didn't receive one. Have you eaten at a Logan's restaurant?
Mr. Tiseo: I have not, sir. I wish I would have.
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that there is a Logan's in Troy?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. I have not been there.
Mr. LaPine: Where is it located?
Mr. Tiseo: I don't know that. I wish I did. I apologize. It was not my intention of
presenting tonight up until about 5:30 p.m. when Mr. Howell called me said
that he would not be able to make it. He had taken ill and was still at the hotel.
Mr. Shane: Are you prepared to discuss signage for this building?
Mr. Tiseo: The aspects of signage, I understand, that there was a question about signage
being on four parts of the building. We are here to do what the Planning
Commission sees as fit on the project whether it be the two sides. I would not
be able to designate which sides. If the Commission chooses to elect two
sides, we will abide by two sides only and if you give us the option of
selecting those two sides, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Shane: The two red lines that appear on the facia of the building , is that meant to
depict neon?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. That is neon.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition?
Mr. LaPine: They have this add on where they have some overhead and they call it a
garage room where they have overhead doors. Do you know anything about
those doors? What kind of doors those are? Are they garage doors or are they
special made doors?
Mr. Tiseo: I apologize, I cannot answer that question.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know if they are purchasing this parcel? Is it a lease agreement or is it
owned by Millennium Park. Do you know that?
Mr. Tiseo: No. I do not know that.
17647
MR. LaPine: That is all I have for now.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners and there is nobody
in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition, I am going to
close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: It may be prudent, in as much as this gentleman was called in at the last
minute, many questions were asked but poor guy, at the last minute wasn't
knowledgeable, probably very capable but just didn't know the answers. In
view of this, I don't think we are going to hold anything up by tabling this
until the April 11 meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
#3-63-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-10 by
Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a full service restaurant to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road east of Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
02-02-10 be tabled to April 11, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
We will come back on April 11. There was a need to review the signs and try
and make them conform to the ordinance. So you can bring that and that can
be done between now and them as well.
Mr. LaPine: Could you have Mr. Howell call our Planning Department and give me the
location for the restaurant in Troy so I can go out and look at it?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes I will. I can find that out myself. I will call Mark and give him that
information.
Mr. LaPine: I am out in the Troy area and I would like to take a look at it.
Mr. Tiseo: Thank you.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-02-02-09 Logan's Roadhouse (Class C)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-09 by
Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
liquor license in conjunction with a full service restaurant proposed to be
located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road east of Middlebelt Road in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
17648
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Livonia
Fire &Rescue Division, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License on property located at
the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal.
Approval is subject to final inspection." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second item is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated March 10, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of March 1, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted: (1) There are at least four(4) licensed
establishments within 1,000 feet of this petitioner;Mitch Housey's,
Cloverlanes Bowl, Chi-Chi-'s and Mesquite Steakhouse. City Council may
waive this restriction. This Department has no objection to this petition
except as noted above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Ben Tiseo, 33150 Schoolcraft, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: When we have a Public Hearing, it is published and we have to get all
comments for it. I assume this is just to have a Class C license to go with the
restaurant. Correct?
r.. Mr. Tiseo: That is my understanding.
Mr. McCann: If there are no questions from the Commissioners, I am going to go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, I am going to close the Public
Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Shane: In as much as the petition preceding this one was tabled I think we should also
table this one to April 11, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#3-64-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on Petition 2000-02-02-09 by Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in
conjunction with a full service restaurant proposed to be located on the south
side of Schoolcraft Road east of Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section
25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2000-02-02-09 be tabled to April 11, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-02-02-12 Ronald Cochell (Bobby's Country House)
17649
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-12 by
Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country House) in
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of March 2, 2000, the site plan for the above subject petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted: (1) Consideration should be given to
screening the mechanical equipment on the west side of the building. (2)
Eight barrier free parking spaces are required for the proposed occupant
load. At least one of the eight spaces would be required to be van accessible
(8'wide/8'aisle). The barrier free spaces should be equally distributed for
the upper and lower levels and be located closest to the main entrance or
ramp for each level." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ronald Cochell, 47525 Riverwoods Drive, Canton, Michigan
George Subell, 41980 Waterfall Drive, Northville.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project?
Mr. Cochell: We are trying to buy a restaurant building from the City of Livonia. We plan
on making several improvements, most of which are on the south side which
faces Five Mile Road. There is an old cooler, dumpster bin, air conditioning,
air makeup units, what have you, that is all open to the traffic. In talking to
Mr. Taormina and other people, I think it has not been available to us to move
that anywhere else due to the way the building was made years ago. We are
going to screen that, tear out the cooler, re-do the cooler, and put a nice roof on
it. We are going to screen the dumpster area with evergreens, similar to what
you have outside the City offices here and parking lot. It was my idea to
screen off the mechanical areas on the west side of the building and handicap
is not a problem because we have handicap around the building.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I guess you have an agreement with the City and with the golf course that you
are going to have shared parking. During the months of April through
October, you are supposed to be allowed 156 parking spaces. That parking is
17650
all intermingled. How do you control your parking spaces and who parks for
the restaurant and who parks for the golf course?
`r..
Mr. Cochell: I think somebody, like the golf course manager, we would like to meet them
and talk to them once this is all consummated, and talk to them about if they
have a problem with it infringing on the golfing. We would try to address that,
much like if the golfers infringe on our area, we don't know how that would be
addressed, whether there would have to be stanches put up with maybe cords.
Or, if the City or City golf course is having a golf outing, for instance, and
they have additional parking requirements, that is something we would have to
talk to the manager of the course about to try to work that out. I would
imagine there would be times that we may infringe too and that may be a
monthly thing.
Mr. LaPine: I understand. During the golf season when there are a lot of golfers there,
who will go to the restaurant and may say we can park here because we
eventually will be going into the restaurant and secondly you may have a
shower or banquet that afternoon and not have the parking available and the
people who booked you for a banquet may be upset if they don't have the
parking available. I was just curious how you could control it. I think you are
going to be able to work it out, but I was just curious how you were going to
control it.
Mr. Cochell: One thing we did present was say there is a wedding party on some day, we
*441.- know
provide valet parking so we could condense our parking somewhat. I
know where George used to work down in Dearborn, for 18 years, they had
valet parking because when they had banquets added on to the side of that
building they had nowhere near enough parking so they have valet parking
there almost all of the time. Other than that, we just basically, if someone had
to move or if we notice that there is some infringement, we would probably
have to take it upon ourselves and try to address it.
Mr. LaPine: Anybody that owns a restaurant knows that if you don't have adequate parking,
that is your death.
Mr. Cochell: Right. That is one of the reasons that the bid was up twice on this property
because of the parking concerns of the people that were bidding on the
property.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? I don't see anyone. Before I go back to them, there were some
concerns regarding screening/landscaping. Has that all been addressed?
Mr. Taormina:Yes. I believe the plans reflect what Mr. Cochell has represented this evening
with respect to the exterior modifications that are going to take place, at least
those that are visible to the public along Five Mile, including the replacement
17651
of the cooler and the new siding along that area as well as additional plantings
in front of the dumpster. We have agreed that we would revisit the issue of the
landscaping to determine exactly what type of plant material is appropriate for
that location because there are some topography issues involved and that is
something we have agreed to work out in detail later on.
Mr. McCann: Are you suggesting that the landscape plan come back then before us or is that
something that you are suggesting the current situation is something you can
work out between now and Council?
Mr. Taormina:I think we can work that out between now and Council. It is a very small area
that is affected in front of the dumpster.
Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you. Are there any last comments before I close the Public
Hearing?
Mr. Cochell: I met with Mark and Al to develop the different types of landscape material
that could be used. I think that is not a big issue. It is something that we can
agree upon. We know it's got to be done and we have to have something there
that is going to dress it up a little better than it has been for years. On the west
side, there already was landscape but it has grown up to the point where all the
electrical boxes are visible now and that is where I want to put in some type of
landscape, smaller and denser to cover that.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I am going to close
the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#3-65-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-12 by
Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country House) in
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-12 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the building elevations plan marked sheet P-3 prepared by Daniel
Scott Cannon, as received by the Planning Commission on February 23,
2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the proposed lower level vestibule addition shall be constructed at the
entrance at the east end of the building in conformance with the lower level
floor plan marked sheet P-1 prepared by Daniel Scott Cannon, as received
by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2000;
17652
3) That the brick used in the construction of the vestibule addition shall match
the brick on the existing building and shall be full face 4-inch brick, no
exceptions;
4) That the handicapped parking spaces of the required size and number shall
be provided in compliance with barrier free requirements and shall be
equally distributed for the upper and lower levels;
5) That landscaping for screening purposes along the south sides of the
dumpster enclosure and the walk-in cooler enclosure shall be provided
with the type, size and number of plant materials to be determined through
consultation with the Planning Department staff;
6) That the landscaping referenced above shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition; and
7) That all signage for this site, either freestanding or wall mounted, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. My
understanding is that the petitioner is requesting the waiver of the seven day
rule. The Council has been notified and that they have no objection and that it
will in fact assist them. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-66-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
`r•► of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-02-02-
12 by Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
17653
restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country house) in
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with a waiver of the seven day rule.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-02-02-11 Ronald Cochell (Bobby's Country House)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-11 by
Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor
license in conjunction with a full service restaurant proposed to operate in an
existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country House) in the S.E.
1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Division of
Police, dated March 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "In response to the
captioned petition, the Traffic Bureau has no objection to the site plan as
4111.
submitted. Please advise the petitioner that all handicapped spaces must be
individually posted no sharing of signs for adjacent handicapped spaces." The
letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ronald Cochell, 47525 Riverwoods Drive, Canton, Michigan.
George Subell, 41980 Waterfall Drive,Northville.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything you would like to add?
Mr. Cochell: Not other than we want to provide the same services to the community that
was there over the years. We plan to have the grill for the golfers and the
banquet facility upstairs and a full service restaurant downstairs.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing
none, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, a motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
17654
#3-67-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-11 by
.., Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor
license in conjunction with a full service restaurant proposed to operate in an
existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country house) in the S.E.
1/4 of Section 17, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-11 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I just want to make the observation that we have a petition here that meets the
zoning ordinance with respect to the 1000 foot distance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
*gamy It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Again, there is a
request of the seven day waiver and the Council feels that it will benefit the
petitioner and the Council in this instance.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was
#3-68-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-02-02-
11 by Ronald Cochell requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
liquor license in conjunction with a full service restaurant proposed to operate
in an existing building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (former Bobby's Country house) in the S.E.
1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #10 PETITION 2000-02-02-13 Rodino, L.P. (Goddard School)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-13 by
Rodino, L.P. on behalf of Goddard School requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate an early childhood school on property located on the
17655
south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadowview Lane and Victor
Parkway in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 6.
`ow
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description contained therein. We would like to point out
that any storm sewer taps or drive approach work will be under the
jurisdiction of Wayne County and that permits will need to be obtained directly
from them." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The
second item is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2000,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct an early childhood school on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If subject building is to be
provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provide& (3) Access around buildings shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall
to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 14, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of March 3, 2000, the above referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The occupancy load(number of
children and employees) must be noted in order to determine the required
size of the play area, (150 square feet per child, 5000 square feet minimum),
and parking requirements. (2) Petition does not indicate the required
minimum 5 foot tall appropriate fencing around the play area. (3) Petition
does not indicate the required minimum 10 foot greenbelt between the play
area and adjacent residential property. (4) Petition depicts required barrier
free parking incorrectly. (5) Petition does not note the required double
striping nor any are required lighting, shielding, size or type and should be
clarified. (6) This signage as proposed will need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. This site would be permitted one identification sign up to
6 square feet, not higher than 4 feet with a 20 foot setback. It would also be
permitted an advertising sign of up to 20 square feet as a wall sign or a
ground sign (maximum 6 feet high with a 10 foot setback). We would
recommend that this petition be resubmitted with additional information in
order to make an accurate review." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector. The fourth item is a letter from the Division of
Police, dated March 14, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
.• proposed site plan as submitted. There appears to be adequate parking
available for this site plan although the number of employees has not been
17656
included on the site plan. Handicapped spaces must be individually posted.
Due to the location and limited distance of this site, which is at the crest of a
,,,w. hill on Eight Mile Road and the limited site distance caused by this location,
we would recommend that the west driveway be eliminated altogether; also an
exit be constructed onto Meadow View Lane. In addition to the elimination of
the west driveway, we would recommend installing a deceleration lane from
Meadow View Lane east to the driveway entrance of the site. It is
recommended that a stop sign be placed at each driveway for exiting vehicles."
The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road. I represent Rodino, L.P. which is a Pennsylvania
corporation also the owner and franchiser of the Goddard Schools. Goddard
Schools are throughout the eastern United States. They are also in the states of
Indiana, Ohio and now coming into Michigan for the first time. They have
some 75 schools throughout the country. They are directed toward the early
childhood education nursery schools. Their students range in age from six
months up to 6 years. The school is open from approximately 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. for five days a week. I have Mr. Gary Wertz, Vice President of
Rodino L.P. with me that can familiarize the Planning Commission with the
operation of these schools. If you have any questions I am sure Mr. Wertz will
be very happy to answer any.
No"' Gary Wertz, 381 Brooks Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
Mr. McCann: Briefly, you want to tell us about your school?
Mr. Wertz: The Goddard School is for early childhood development, as Mr. Tangora had
stated from 6 weeks old to 6 years old. We have degree teachers that monitor
the normal daily operation of the school. We have two teachers per classroom.
It is a very tight knit professional organization. It is corporate backed. We do,
in the process of building, use local contractors, local material men and follow
our guidelines for our prototype building. We have built this building in many
locations on one acre. It suits our needs. We have dedicated play area which
is divided between infants and toddlers. I don't know what else I can elaborate
on.
Mr. Hale: How many in Michigan? You have 75 schools total?
Mr. Wertz: This will be the first in Michigan.
Mr. Hale: Where is the headquarters?
Mr. Wertz: King Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hale: What other states?
17657
Mr. Wertz: We are in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas,
.. Missouri and we are looking to put schools in Oregon and California.
Mr. Hale: Do you have to be licensed to operate in Michigan?
Mr. Wertz: Yes.
Mr. Hale: What is the license for child care?
Mr. Wertz: License requirement, we have a director of special operations who will contact
the Licensing Board for the State of Michigan and we will be in full
compliance with any recommendations that the State of Michigan requires.
Mr. Hale: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: You indicated all the teachers will be certified teachers. Are you telling me
they are four year college graduates?
Mr. Wertz: There will be one teacher on staff that will be certified. Yes.
Mr. LaPine: You say you are going to have approximately 115 to 125 children for a staff of
18. Then you talk about different ages of the children and you say that you
will have four rooms; one for 6 weeks to 12 months, one for 12 months to 24
No.. months, etc. Then you say there will be two teachers in each room. That
comes out to eight. What is the 18? How many hours a day do they work?
Are they full time employees? Are they part time employees?
Mr. Wertz: They are part time employees. It is dictated on the volume of students that
attend the school. There is a full time director and full time staff and four
individuals at any one time.
Mr. LaPine: All of these people you hire will be checked out by the state as to their
backgrounds?
Mr. Wertz: Yes. There is a full background check.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: You are going to have 115 to 125 children?
Mr. Wertz: Between 110 and 120 students. Yes sir.
Mr. Shane: Could you tell me the average number that will be there all day? What I am
driving at is, when it comes to pickup time, what kind of volume of cars will
we be looking at for parents picking up children?
Mr. Wertz: It will vary throughout the course of the day. Some are half-day students and
some are full time students. The bulk of the traffic pickup will be between the
17658
hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.. They won't be dismissed at 4:00 p.m.. It
varies on the particular child that is being picked up according to the parent's
,,,r, schedule. The time frame is from between 5 to 7 minutes for dropping off and
leaving. There is not much parking required.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? If not, I've got a couple concerning the outdoor
play area which is about 8,000 sq. ft. You understand that this is less than
50% of what the City requires.
Mr. Wertz: At any one time, there is no more than 10 infants in the infant play area. In the
toddler play area there is no more than the maximum which will be 20. We
don't allow 2 or 3 classrooms to go out at one time because there is, the best
way I can describe it, there is a sleep time, one time and there is a time to go
out in the play area. It is separated between infants and toddlers. The
maximum for infants is about 10 and that is being on the heavy side and 20 for
the toddlers, and that is on the heavy side.
Mr. McCann: I was also looking at it that there was a problem according to the plans that you
require a 10 foot greenbelt in the play area and the adjacent residential
property.
Mr. Wertz: We would comply with that. I also brought photographs to show the
�. delineation of the tot lot versus the infants and toddlers. I also brought
photographs to show you two different styles of fence that we have used and I
think the Commission has in their packet a view of a school we built in
Georgia which would be similar to what we plan on building here on Eight
Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: You also have two entrances and exits on this property which obviously you
need if you have up to 125 children being dropped off in the morning and
picked up in the evening. Correct?
Mr. Wertz: That is not necessarily correct. We will not have that volume all at one time.
Mr. McCann: Between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Wertz: It is actually spread out between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and then there is a
pickup between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and dropped off between 1:00 p.m.
and 2:00 p.m. and then a pickup between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Mr. McCann: My concern is that with that type of volume. You've been out to Eight Mile
Road at peak times?
Mr. Wertz: Yes.
�► Mr. McCann: It is extremely difficult. I know the people coming off of Meadowview Lane
have concerns. We have looked at office use property to the west of you and
17659
that is very limited activity as a veterinary clinic compared to the use that you
are proposing and your entrance is going to be within 50 ft. to 75 ft., it looks
�r.. like on this map of Meadowview Lane. Aren't you concerned about the traffic
concerns that is going to create for your residents trying to get in, and with
anybody trying to turn left or right?
Mr. Wertz: Not with the staggered timing of dropping off and picking up. It is not as if
there was going to be a mad rush as if we had a dozen school buses coming in.
It is parents coming in at their leisure, at their convenience. The times are
staggered and it will be a one-way entrance. Along Meadowview Lane we
have an entrance that will be one way coming in, going counter clockwise and
exit out on the easterly portion of Eight Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: Which entrance is the entrance?
Mr. Wertz: The entrance would be closest to Meadowview Lane. That would be one way,
coming in. There will be "do not enter" signs posted there.
Mr. McCann: Your left hand turn lane from Meadowview Lane and for your facility is going
to be approximately the same. If there are no further questions from the
Commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Joe Mysliwiec, 20464 Meadowview Lane. I had a chance to go over to the Planning
Department and look at the pictures of the proposed building and I thought it
was very nice until I looked at the number of students coming and I was
surprised. I was a former junior high school teacher for 12 years and I am
surprised that this is being called a school. I didn't know you could teach 6
month old youngsters. Why don't we call it a day care center? Because that is
what it is. The traffic coming in, I don't know if the gentleman has been out to
Meadowview to look at that traffic. I have been living in that subdivision for
16 years and another 125 cars coming between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.,
which most likely are going to be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. when the
school buses come through and right where you are located is right at the peak
of a hill. I have been complaining. I have made calls to the traffic bureau.
People coming east on Eight Mile turning into the Farmington subdivisions
use the center turn lane, the left turn lane, as a lane where they start way down
at the end of the hill, start coming up to make a left turn going into Farmington
Hills and the traffic is horrendous there. I don't know how many near miss
accidents have happened because people cannot see. People at the top of the
hill, I know when I am coming home, I turn in the left turn lane and invariably
they are coming up from way down at the bottom of the hill, it is a traffic
nightmare. With another 125 cars because I suspect nobody is going to be
dropping off 5 children to a day care center that you are going to have 125 cars
during rush hour traffic in the morning and 125 cars coming at evening rush
hour. As a citizen and as a resident, I am really against it. I think it is rural
urban farm and I think the land should stay that way. If we've got homes, and
°•.- you gentlemen alluded to the fact that we have had nice homes built between
the expressway and Meadowview Lane, right west of the veterinary clinic, all
17660
very nice, we should have that parcel turned into homes or maybe if he could
buy the house east of it, and move the center over a little bit more. I look at
`.. that piece of property and it is just too much jammed onto just a little corner
and I voice my objection. Thank you.
Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar. That is lot 10 on your map. I think Joe has pretty much said
everything I wanted to say. You really need to be out there in the evening
anytime between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to see the traffic backed up all the
way from the freeway to the top of that hill. An entrance off of Meadowview
Lane is not going to make the traffic any easier. Meadowview Lane is also at
the top of the hill. We are unfortunate that the two subdivision entrances for
Farmington Hills and for us are on opposite sides of the hill and people making
left hand turns there end up facing each other as they come trying to pass each
other to make the two left hand turns. One thing that wasn't brought up is that
the veterinary clinic is also a waiver use. The subdivision was pretty much
united against selling that veterinary clinic as commercial property. It came to
a standstill and at that time I think the Mayor came up with a proposal to go to
waiver use. The people that live in that area bought houses out there because
they wanted to live in a residential area and you can all see what has happened
to that area. We really do not want any sort of non-residential property any
closer to us. Thank you very much.
Silvano Tomassi, 60040 Robindale, Dearborn Heights. I own Lot 38 which is the first lot
south of Eight Mile and east Meadowview Lane. I have the blue print ready to
go to City Hall because I want to build my home. I bought the lot about 10
years ago which it took me a long time to save money to buy the lot. I waited
another 10 years to save enough money to build a nice home for myself and
my family. Now they want to build this school over there which, according to
this notice, they are going to go almost halfway on the back of my lot. I will
have no privacy with 125 kids. I don't think I am going to have any peace of
mind and I object to this project.
Mrs. Tomassi: They are going to destroy our dream.
Mr. Tomassi: Like my wife said, they are going to destroy everything. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition. Sir, do
you have any last words?
Mr. Wertz: What people don't understand is that we won't have 125 students out running
or children in the play area at one time, or running around the school.
Actually, Goddard School is a corporate name known nationwide. It is a day
care center. Of course, we don't have one year old and infants out all the time.
The toddlers are staggered when they go out into the play area. There will not
be 110 to 120 students out. There is no guarantee that the school will be full at
110 or 120 students. That is the maximum it can occupy. It is a home run if
we occupy with 120 students, or children.
17661
Mr. McCann: I can pretty much guarantee in this area most day care centers are running 90%
to 95% occupancy.
Mr. Wertz: Well then there is a need for this type of facility.
Mr. McCann: In the right area.
Mr. Wertz: In the right area, that is correct. We are taking the community into
consideration. What the previous people said that it was going to ruin their
dream. We don't have 125 screaming children running around from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#3-69-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-13 by
Rodino, L.P. on behalf of Goddard School requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate an early childhood school on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadowview Lane and Victor
Parkway in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-13 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 5.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the provisions of Section
5.03(g)(2) which requires that an outdoor play space be provided equal in
area to at least one hundred fifty(150) square feet per child;
3) That the proposal as submitted does not provide the required ten(10) foot
wide greenbelt where the outdoor play space directly abuts residential
property;
4) That the petitioner has failed to provide conclusive evidence that the
proposed use is in compliance with the provisions of Section 18.38(12),
Off Street Parking Schedule, which requires one (1) parking space for each
employee (including teachers and administrators) plus sufficient off-street
space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of student;
5) That a traffic hazard exists due to the limited sight distance caused by the
change in grade of the Eight Mile Road pavement in proximity to the
subject site;
6) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
17662
7) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
,o, surrounding uses in the area; and
8) That the increased activity, traffic and noise caused by the proposed use
will be injurious to the peace and tranquility of the residential uses in the
area.
9) That the petitioner has not adequately addressed all the matters of concern
as listed in the letters from the Traffic, Bureau, Inspection Department and
the Fire Marshal.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The motion is denied. You have 10 days to appeal the decision to the City
Council.
Mr. Tangora: Yes we will appeal. I recognize that the Commission doesn't normally do this
but I think you will recognize that this puts us behind approximately about 6
weeks because we have to go before the Council for a Public Hearing and with
their notice provisions, it delays it so I am going to ask the Commission to
consider a waiver of the seven day rule, recognizing that we do have a serious
time problem. We anticipated that we would be through the Planning
Commission hopefully with a approval going on to Council for a study session
thereby avoiding the notice provisions of a public hearing but because of this
action it puts us behind approximately a month and the waiver of the seven day
New rule can help us out so I would ask that the Commission would consider our
request.
Mr. McCann: I have one problem with that because I see Mr. Engebretson in the back and
that is an agreement we made between the Mayor, former president of the
Council, which I have talked to Maureen Miller-Brosnan about and that we
wouldn't waive any petitions unless we had prior consent from the Council
president and that I haven't been able to do that in this instance.
Mr. Tangora: If we had anticipated this, maybe we could have requested their consent to it
but unfortunately we didn't have that knowledge. I recognize that you do have
this policy but I certainly would ask that you recognize that we do have a
serious time problem and we have it because that purchase agreement has a
definite date that we should not go beyond.
Mr. McCann: Obviously, if the Council requested that the other ones waive the seven day
rule I might be able to but it is a question whether they could accommodate
you on their agenda which I have no idea. I will leave it to the
Commissioners if they want to make a motion, they can I am just not sure even
if we did, that the Council would accommodate you.
Mr. Tangora: If the Commission did, we would go the Council with an appeal and they
N_ would put us on a study session. We would be put on a regular meeting to set
17663
a public hearing and we would be able to get to the Council for a public
hearing probably a couple of weeks before we could right now.
Mr. LaPine: I'll move to waive the seven days. If he gets to the Council to put him on, that
is up to the Council.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-70-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does herby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-02-02-
13 by Rodino, L.P. on behalf of Goddard School requesting waiver use
approval to construct and operate an early childhood school on property
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadowview Lane and
Victor Parkway in the N.E.1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
We'll give it to you. If I get yelled at by the Council, I'll call back to you,
Chuck.
Mr. Tangora: I know it is unusual but again, we appreciate it.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-02-02-14 Target Stores
Nosy
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-02-14 by
Target Stores requesting waiver use approval to utilize a temporary
freestanding garden center for outdoor display of garden materials on the
sidewalk west of the store's main entrance and carried on annually from April
19 to July 1, inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
(Wonderland Mall) between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first one is a letter from the
Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2000, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to display a temporary freestanding garden center on the sidewalk west of the
store's main entrance on property located at the above referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 7, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of March 3, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
This department has no objection to this petition for the time frame noted
17664
(April 19 to July 1)." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 13,
"411111, 2000, which reads as follows: "The site plan as submitted shows no pallets on
the sidewalk between the curb and the building. The photographs, which were
also included in the request, show pallets on the sidewalk. If the pallets were
to be used as shown in the photographs our only concern would be the width
of sidewalk available between the curb and the pallets. Adequate space
between the pallet and curb is necessary in order to allow pedestrians to safely
walk around the pallets without stepping into the roadway. The site plan
indicates that the display extends 12 feet from the building, which leaves only
8 feet of sidewalk from pedestrian traffic. This location is adjacent to a major
driveway for vehicular traffic entering and exiting the mall. Due to the heavy
flow of traffic we recommend that the display area be reduced from 12 feet to
8 feet in order to allow ample room for pedestrians to move in and around the
display area safely. The Police Department has no other concerns regarding
this petition." The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? We don't have any representatives from
Target here this evening? It is a Public Hearing so I will go to the audience. Is
there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Reinhard Lemke, Wonderland Mall, 29859 Plymouth Road, Livonia. I feel very comfortable
with it. The reason I feel comfortable with it is because when I personally
`tawsuggested last year when Target was doing their major remodeling, I suggested
they add something to the summer season and they said they would think
about it. When I read that this came up, I felt they followed our ideas since you
have to compete in the summer season with other markets. I feel personally
that it is something nice to add to the Target store for the summer season. I
definitely agree that we have to make sure that the customers are served safely
so whatever you feel is the safest way to be done.
Mr. Hale: Do you have any idea why it is that Target is not present?
Mr. Lemke: I expected someone to be present here.
Mr. Hale: Do you think it is just an oversight that someone is not here?
Mr. Lemke: I assume so.
Mr. Hale: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I have no big objection. My only problem is where do we draw the line?
Once we let Target start using, K-Mart has it now. Any store around Livonia,
no matter how big, wants to have outside sales during the summer months. If
we open it up for one place, I think we open ourselves up for anyone who
wants to come in. If they want it, I think we have to give it to them. I don't
`_- think we can say because Target is a big store or a big landlord in that
Wonderland shopping center, that they should get it and some little guy that is
17665
in a little shopping center or strip mall shouldn't get it. I don't have a big hang-
up with this. I could go either way on this but I think we are opening ourselves
�.. up for some other stores that are going to do it or else we are going to close our
eyes. I happen to go by Farmer Jack's. The new store on Seven Mile Road,
the whole front of their store is loaded with everything you could think of.
Where do we draw the line?
Mr. McCann: Since there is no one else wishing to speak for or against this petition, I am
going to close the Public Hearing.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have no real problem with this. As a matter of fact there are so many
people that do this without coming through the channels, that I have to respect
their request. If it is good for business, we can't discourage that. They had the
courtesy to come to us. It is unfortunate that nobody from Target has
represented it but we just have to assume that they are going to be on the ball.
I know there are some places that are very difficult to walk. They put their
stuff right by the curb and I don't think I should mention names, but I am sure
Commissioner Hale who has been an attorney in that type of business could
tell us some horror stories about that too. Right Mike?
Mr. Hale: Right. The only thing I would add is that I don't feel comfortable with it
particularly in that Target is not here so that we could ask a number of
questions about the depth and width of the outside units. I have been involved
in representing clients in litigation where they have been injuries at similar
outside playground setups. I don't feel comfortable with it.
Mr. McCann: I think you had made an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi: But I didn't go through the routine list.
Mr. McCann: But that was the point. Just so it is on the table.
Mr. Hale: O.K.
Mr. McCann: So you are approving the resolution and then limiting it on the sidewalk for at
least 12 feet in width at all times? Correct, Dan?
Mr. Piercecchi: Right. The staff prepared these and I will read them.
Mr. McCann: Why don't we do that and that way we can continue.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-02-02-14 by Target
Stores requesting waiver use approval to utilize a temporary freestanding
garden center for outdoor display of garden materials on the sidewalk west of
the store's main entrance and carried on annually from Apri119 to July 1,
inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
17666
(Wonderland Mall) between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
sow City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-14 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the outdoor display shall be confined to the areas as illustrated on the
site plan, received by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2000,
submitted by Target Stores;
2) That the materials to be sold on the sidewalk in front of the building shall
be limited to annual and perennial flowers and potted shrubs;
3) That the time period within which the outdoor display will take place shall
be limited to April 19 through July 1, inclusive; and
4) That the outdoor display and sales to be located on the sidewalk in front of
the building shall be limited so as to maintain a clear space for pedestrian
circulation on the sidewalk of at least 12 feet in width at all times.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543.
stow 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann: Is there support?
Mr. Shane: I would like to offer a substitute motion, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make
a tabling resolution because I am uncomfortable with acting on this without
some discussion of some of these items with the petitioner, realizing that he
has a time problem.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved it was
#3-71-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, on Petition 2000-02-02-14 by
Target Stores requesting waiver use approval to utilise a temporary
freestanding garden center for outdoor display of garden materials on the
sidewalk west of the store's main entrance and carried on annually from April
19 to July 1, inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
(Wonderland Mall) between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
°r.. City Council that Petition 2000-02-02-14 be tabled to April 11, 2000.
17667
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: LaPine, Hale, Piercecchi, Shane
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: Alanskas, Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of our agenda. We will now
proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
ITEM #12 Approval of the Minutes of the 800th Regular Meeting
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 800th Regular Meeting held on February 8, 2000.
Mr. McCann: All of the members of the Commission were present at the meeting with the
exception of Mr. Hale and Mr. Shane, which would only leave us with three
members which is not a quorum so we can't vote on that. We will have to
table that to the next meeting.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved, it was
#3-72-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 800th Regular Meeting held on February 8,
2000 are hereby tabled to April 11, 2000 due to a lack of a quorum.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted.
ITEM #13 Approval of the Minutes of the 801st Public Hearing & Regular
Meeting
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 801st Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on February 29, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
#3-73-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 800 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
held on February 29, 2000 are hereby approved.
A roll call was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Alanskas, Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
17668
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 803rd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on March 28, 2000 was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
(--\\\ liJt. • IL) Iu?
Michael Hale, ecreta
ATTEST:,,- Zl-() ( IZ
J. es C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
4r/