HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-06-13 17761
MINUTES OF THE 807th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
�... OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
807th 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 Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas *Elaine Koons LaPine
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
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
N '' petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten
days in which to appeal the decision, in writing,to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission become effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their 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.
*Arrived 7:45 p.m.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-04-01-07 Michael Soave
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
01-07 by Michael Soave proposing to rezone property located on the North side
of Five Mile Road between Cavour and Garden in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13
fromR-1 and R-7 to RC.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated May 15, 2000, which
s"' reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
17762
reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal
or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested." The letter was signed by David Lear, P.E.,
,`, Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. I am here for my son Mike. What we would like to
do is build two buildings consisting of four units each. This would be a blend
of two and three bedroom each. They will be one and two stories, full
basement and two car attached garage. The selling price of these units will be
from$175,000 or over and this petition does meet the RC zoning. I will
answer your questions.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, you said you wanted to build two buildings. Will they be two story
or one story?
Mr. Soave: One building will be one story and the rest will be two stories.
Mr. Alanskas: Will they be all brick?
Mr. Soave: 50% brick.
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 am going to close the Public
Hearing. Mr. Soave do you have anything additional?
Mr. Soave: No sir. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was
#6-111-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been by the City
Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-04-01-07 by
Michael Soave proposing to rezone property located on the North side of Five
Mile Road between Cavour and Garden in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13 from R-1
and R-7 to RC,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2000-04-01-07 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation of medium density residential land use for this area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for medium density
residential land use in a condominium mode; and
17763
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide one uniform zoning
classification for the subject tax parcel.
r..
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-04-01-08 Leo Soave Building Company, Inc.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
01-08 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property
located on the South side of Morlock Road between Parkville Avenue and
Maplewood Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area, and gave a brief description of the project.
Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Engineering Division dated May 15, 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: 'Lot 395 of Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 6, T. 1S., R.
9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 66, Page
57 of Wayne County Records except the West 80.00 feet thereof also except
the South 47.58 feet thereof We would like to note that there is currently no
storm sewer available to the parcel, and if the developer wishes to build on the
property, he would need to secure easements and extend the existing storm
sewer on Parkville Avenue, or provide soil borings if drywells are to be
utilized Sanitary sewer is available to the properties, although leads would
need to be extended under Morlock Road. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E.,
Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. What we would like to do is build two houses and
retain the present home. These homes will sell for about $220,000. The
zoning on this is only the frontage which is 70 feet. These lots will be 18,900
sq. ft. The other one will be 17,640 sq. ft. As you know, the R-2 zoning
requires 8400 sq. ft. I will answer your questions. Thank you.
�... Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
17764
Mr. Shane: A question to the staff. Mr. Taormina, in order to create these three lots,
would it be done by lot split or by subdivision plat?
"%N. Mr. Taormina: In this particular instance, I believe it could be done through the division of
the existing lots. I think there has already been at least one division.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, on the existing homes that you have, would that blend in with the
two homes that you would be building?
Mr. Soave: The two homes would be a little bit bigger.
Mr. Alanskas: I know they will be bigger, but as far as the brick work and so on.
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. They would. If we build a ranch, it will be all brick. If we build a
two story, it will be 50% brick.
Mr. Alanskas: What are you planning on building on those two lots, a ranch or two colonials?
Mr. Soave: At the present time, we've got a plan for a colonial on the west side, which will
be 50%brick and on the east side of the existing house, it will be a ranch,
which will be all brick.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
`t`` Marcella Felton, 20357 Maplewood, Livonia, the lot right next to where Mr. Soave plans to
put an extra house. I have a petition signed by the neighbors in the
neighborhood with some of the objections. There is one copy for each one of
the Commissioners.
Mr. McCann: Have you filed this with the City?
Ms. Felton: No.
Mr. McCann: Who has the original?
Ms. Felton: I do.
Mr. McCann: Maybe you will want to make that part of the record so whatever happens
tonight, it goes on to the City Council so that they get to review it as well.
Ms. Felton: All right.
Mr. McCann: For the record it is a two page petition. I will read it into the record. "In
regard to petition 2000-04-01-08 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc.,
proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Morlock Road
between Parkville Avenue and Maplewood Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of 1 from
�"" RUF(Rural Urban Farm 1/2 acre min. lot) to R-2(one family residential 70'
17765
X 120'min. lot). Leo Soave Building Company purchased the property with
full knowledge the purchase was two lots one house per lot. To rezone of
said property will not benefit the neighbors or the neighborhood It will only
`r. benefit Leo Soave Building Company. The rezoning of said property will
open the door for additional rezoning on Parkville Avenue. We, the
neighbors object to any rezoning of said property. Re: Objections to
rezoning (1) The entire corner(south/east) of Parkville St. and Morlock St
has been previously rezoned, and include lots 396, 395c1, 395a, 395b,395c, to
remain with no further rezoning. (2) Existing dwelling (residential) to
remain per petition to re zone. Objection: Existing dwelling faces (front
facade) west; and side yard per petition/site plan is deceptive and
misrepresented as side yard in the existing backyard (3) Properties
adjoining 395c are more than five feet(5'0) lower in elevation. Objection:
Flooding; the Planning Commission will need to stipulate in writing that the
difference in property elevations will not cause or contribute to any water
damage or flooding." The petition has 41 signatures. They appear to be
neighbors on Morlock, Maplewood and Parkville. Is there anything additional
you want us to know besides what is in here?
Ms. Felton: There are other neighbors here also.
Mr. McCann: I assume some of the neighbors who signed this are here?
Ms. Felton: Some of them are.
Brian Wilson, 28989 Morlock Ave., the plan 395a. My name is not on the petition. I wanted
to keep an open mind until I saw everything there was to see about it, weighing
both sides equally. Two concerns I wish to share which perhaps could be
addressed. The literature I received in the mail shows the existing home being
on the far east side of lot 395. It is actually on the far west side. It is
extraordinarily close. I don't have the footage, but it is extremely close to the
west side of 395. I live in 395a. One of my concerns is how they are going to
squeeze a colonial home, which I assume will be a larger home. How they will
squeeze a colonial on 395b without having it infringe on the existing home on
395. Keep in mind that it is on the far west side - not the far east side, and also
not infringe on the property that I purchased at 395a. I am just curious how it
can be done without making it appear squeezed-in. Another concern that I
have is that I have lived at this property for almost a year now. I did notice
that this past year there has been quite a bit of flooding ground water in the
midsection right where 395a and 395b meet. I am concerned about the low
end or swampy area when it does rain. I am concerned what kind of drainage
ability they are going to put into that. A final closing comment I will be happy
to share, I moved to Livonia from Battle Creek and before that I lived in
Chicago. In fact I lived in Naperville. Naperville is the town that Livonia beat
out for the best place in America to raise a family. They are number two now,
they used to be number one. One thing about Naperville I would like to point,
they have expanded. They have grown enormously. Their expansion has been
by splitting lots and more and more homes into where it was not intended
``�' originally to be more homes. It is at a point where they have these beautiful
17766
homes with no land and the quality of life is substantially degenerated. One of
the reasons why we moved to Livonia, this appeared, especially the section we
moved in. We looked around long and hard, was it seemed there was ample
space between homes that benefits the quality of life. I realize that Mr. Soave
is a businessman and has made an investment. Yes, I could have, or anybody
else could have too, bought the land and he had every right to buy it. My
concern is that his intention is a business intention and not a quality of life
intention. When I bought my land, I bought it because I want to raise a family
there not because I want to turn it around for sale. I hope you take that into
consideration. Thank you.
Joseph Balanger, 20312 Parkville, right behind the property that is going to be rezoned. The
current house on that property is facing east and west. The front door and the
back door should be facing north and south. The house is going to kind of
hideous without a front door and a back door facing the street that it should be
facing. This address used to be on Parkville, not on Morlock. That is all I
have to say.
Franklin Baker, 28894 Morlock,just kiddy corner of the property in question. Marcella, our
neighbor across the street, has brought this to our attention and has gathered
most of the neighborhood about this. I went over and looked at the property
and one major concern I have was that the house was sitting opposite what the
other houses are going to face. They have already started construction on it
but there is not a single building permit posted anywhere. I would like to
know tonight here at this meeting, if possible, if there has been building
permits issued and if not, is there going to be an inspector out there tomorrow
to shut the project down?
Mr. McCann: Sir, we don't patrol those departments. However, I will put the question to Mr.
Soave to find out what is going on.
Mr. Baker: O.K. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anybody else wishing to speak. I am going to close the Public
Hearing. Mr. Soave would you mind coming forward and answer some of
these questions that have been put to us with regard to the elevation drainage,
the existing building. Have you started construction?
Mr. Soave: When I bought the property there was a hole through the roof. We fixed the
roof. Also, the potential buyer for this property has procured a building
permit. We do have a building permit. If you want, I will bring it to the
Planning Department tomorrow. As far as the lot that is next to the gentleman
that spoke against this rezoning, that is a lot of record. I can go in front of the
Zoning Board of Appeals and hopefully they will grant me a permit to build on
that property. His property is 80' x 252' which is a corner lot. The property I
have is a lot of record and it is 75'x 252'. On a RUF lot, which he has, you
have to stay 50' from the front and 25' from the nearest corner. I rode by there
today and I walked up to the monument and it is a nonconforming RUF. Also
the side yards are nonconforming. As far as the drainage on this property, I
17767
already brought a City Inspector to that site. We dug a test hole and the site is
pure sand. The property will perk. That is the way I plan on addressing my
storm drainage. The property in the back is bi-plate back there so any water on
,,a, site will settle right there. It doesn't have any place to go. Once we put this
new drainage system in, this should be able to take care of the problem. As far
as the lady on Maplewood and Morlock, she is on an R-1 lot, which is 7200 sq.
ft. Our property is almost 19,000 sq. ft. She had 2500 sq. ft. on one side and
from Morlock,just eyeballing it, it was at the most 16 ft. from the property line
on Morlock. Also there are two sheds on this property. Those sheds are ready
to fall down I am going to clean the area up. If the neighbors and the City
tells people like me, we don't want you in this town, then I will gladly not do
anything. I thought somebody would go in there and improve the area by
knocking these buildings down, remodeling the house and if you think I am
doing something wrong, then I am doing something wrong and I'll just go out
of town. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: There was something that I was concerned about and that was the lot
immediately to the west of the lot you are building. What will be the side yard
setbacks on that from the building structure?
Mr. Soave: This is the lot of record?
Mr. McCann: Can you build three lots? It would be the lot that would be created
immediately west of the building that you purchased.
Mr. Soave: The setback on that would be 50' in the front and 10' on each.
Mr. McCann: What I am concerned about is I guess, is if you've got a 10' side yard there, is
there anyway of addressing the side yard entrance of the existing home, if it is
facing east and west?
Mrs. Felton: Sir, I've got pictures of what everybody is talking about. Would you like to
see them?
Mr. McCann: Sure, bring them up. I'll pass them down. Mr. Soave, is there anyway of
adjusting the homes so the entrance is not a side yard?
Mr. Soave Without a major remodeling, no sir. On the house we are remodeling, it is
about 10 feet off the property line but since it is a small house, we have about
30 feet on the other side because that lot is 72-1.2 feet wide. On one side you
are close to the property line. On the other side you have 30 feet side yard.
There is no way. The house is done. We put a new roof on it. There was
some water damage on that property. We fixed that. I hope somebody will
say I am improving the area.
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that you have a building permit and that building
permit is only for fixing the house that is there now? You don't have a permit
for the other two houses
17768
Mr. Soave: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, currently the home that is there is right in the middle of the
,,` two that are being planned for construction. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: I would say that it is probably located further to the east side of Lot 395.
Mr. Piercecchi: But it is in between those two lots, right?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The parcel that is developed is located between the two proposed
building sites. That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any other way that property could be developed in as much as you've
got a lot on each side of it without tearing down that house and making it one
big lot? Is there any other way that could be handled? It almost meets the
RUF standards right now. They are up to about 18,000 or 19,000 sq. ft. The
problem I can see with this package is you do have a home and it is sitting
right in the middle. So, de facto, you do have three lots right now. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:The fact that they are owned in common however prevents this from being
divided into anything less than conforming RUF lots. I think that if you are
suggesting; is there a way to divide the property so as to create an additional
parcel of land, I think logically it would occur on the west side of this parcel as
opposed to the east side by virtue of the fact that the house is located further to
the east on the property. There is more land available to the west despite the
fact that the house does face in that direction. Do you understand what I am
r..
saying? The house, as I understand it, faces west toward Parkville. If you
divide the property so as to create an additional building site on this land, it is
logical that it would occur on the west side just because that is where most of
the available land area is.
Mr. Piercecchi: How many square feet do we have on the west towards Parkville from that
existing home?
Mr. Taormina: As I understand it you have, as he is proposing to split the property, you have
75 feet plus I believe the set back of the existing house is 30 feet, roughly
105 feet and you would have to subtract from that whatever the minimum set
back requirement would be.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am not talking about what is facing north. You are talking about set back.
You are talking about what faces Morlock. I am talking about east and west.
Mr. Taormina: The complication there is that you would create a landlocked property unless
you made some kind of an "L" shaped property.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the first lot would be adjacent to the R-1 homes that are off Maplewood
would be landlocked?
17769
Mr. Taormina: I am not sure how it is you are suggesting the property be divided but if you
are indicating that it be split in an east to west direction
r.. Mr. Piercecchi: I am saying, is there any other way to divide this property up. To me it
looks like you've got a de facto three lots here.
Mr. Taormina: We would have to take a closer look at that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think that is possible?
Mr. Taormina: One point of clarification. A question was asked earlier about whether or not
the property could be divided through a lot split. As I understand it, lot 395
has been divided three times already. There is 395a, 395b, 395c and 395d.
Depending on how the statute reads relative to creation to these new buildings
it may be that the only way to facilitate the division of this property and the
creation of these two new home sites, is to go through site condominium or a
re-plat of the property.
Mr. McCann: What about ZBA?
Mr. Taormina: That wouldn't be an alternative for 395c.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to mention that there is another home on Lyndon at Five Mile
with the same particulars where the side of the house is facing the front of
Lyndon Street and all these gorgeous homes are built there. What they did was
they built a deck around the entire side to made it look like the front with a
*%•.•
garage door and if you look at it you would swear that had a garage door and it
doesn't. There are things that can be done to make this existing home look like
it is facing the correct way. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Shane: In view of the questions we have on this petition, I am going to make a motion
to table.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was
#6-112-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-04-01-08 by Leo
Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located on the
South side of Morlock Road between Parkville Avenue and Maplewood
Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to R-2, the Planning
Commission does recommend that Petition 2000-04-01-08 be tabled to the
July 11, 2000 meeting.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Koons, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann
`'` NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine
17770
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
r.. It will be tabled to July 11, 2000. Since it will be a pending item. it will
require an unanimous consent of the Planning Commission to speak at that
meeting.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-04-02-17 Bogarts Billiard Cafe
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is petition 2000-04-
02-17 by Bogarts Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to operate a
limited service restaurant in connection with a billiard parlor proposed to be
located within Shelden Center on the South side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area..
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have four letters. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue
Division, dated May 9, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
limited service restaurant in connection with a billiard parlor 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 Engineering Division dated May 11, 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 approximate legal description
should be used in connection with this petition: 'That part of the N.W. 1/4 of
Section 34, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan,
described as beginning at a point distant South 88°39'44"East, 612 feet and
South 00°54'16" West, 471 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 34 and
proceeding thence South 75°39'45"East, 74 feet; thence South 14'20'15"
West, 151 feet; thence North 75039'45" West, 74 feet; thence North
14°20'15"East, 151 feet to the point of beginning.' In a recent investigation
conducted by the Water and Sewer Division of this department, it was
discovered that a storm structure immediately behind the Shelden Center was
connected to a sanitary line. This storm structure and any others which are
connected to the sanitary should be disconnected and re-routed to a dedicated
storm line. We would like to take this opportunity to work with Shelden Center
management to resolve this problem. The Shelden Shopping Center plan is
being held in Engineering File C-1805. We would ask that Shelden Center
management contact this office at 734-466-2562 in the near future to prevent
any unnecessary violations from being filed against the property. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The next letter from the Department
17771
of Public Safety, dated May 18, 2000, reads as follows: "In response to the
captioned petition, the Police Department has reviewed the site plan listed
above and has the following recommendations: The current parking spaces
New are approximately 17 feet 7 inches long. We would like to see them striped to
20 feet to meet the 20 foot requirement. Two handicap signs attached to the
east side of the building should be removed. Available parking currently to the
east of the building could be designated as handicap parking with proper line
painting and signing. The parking lot exit of Plymouth Road should have a
stop sign installed at Plymouth Road Several of the lights over the sidewalk
along the building are in disrepair. We would recommend that the lighting be
repaired and or upgraded so as to brighten the illumination along the
building." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 23, 2000, and
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 3, 2000, the above
referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted: (1)As
proposed this petition, as a limited service restaurant, is limited to thirty (30)
seats. The plan has a far greater number of seats. The number of seats would
seem to call for a full service restaurant. This Department has no objection to
this petition other than as noted above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Larry and Marge Wathen, 36078 Parkhurst, Livonia and Mr. John Hamburger, 25505 W. 12
Mile Road, Ste. 5500, Southfield, MI 48034, new owner of the shopping
1".. center.
Mr. McCann: Tell us about why you are looking at this location and moving your two
existing facilities.
Mr. Wathen: We want to consolidate our operations. We never planned on running two
billiard rooms in the City of Livonia. We were operating on Plymouth Road
as Bogart's Billiard Cafe. Competitive influences in the market place dictated
that we do something about alcohol. A lot of our customers were leaving our
business and going to other facilities to get alcohol. The City of Livonia did
not have licenses to issue at the time so we purchased the House of Billiards
on Eight Mile Road to acquire the liquor license. We then petitioned the City
of Livonia Council to allow us to move that liquor license from Eight Mile to
Plymouth Road, which we did. We have been operating that way since 1998.
In 1998 the ownership of the shopping center that we are in on Plymouth Road
changed hands. It was owned, operated and managed by some local people. It
went to an insurance company that is out of town. They are totally
unreasonable and you can't get things done. We decided we wanted to move
and if we wanted to move, let's find one building and put both operations in it.
Then, my family can be together all the time instead of split apart running here
and there with one billiard room to another. We started researching buildings.
We knew we needed in excess of 10,000 sq. ft., something under 13,000 or
14,000 sq. ft. We found the location at Shelden Plaza. We talked to some
people in the Shelden Plaza Shopping Center. We talked to some other
17772
business people around there. They said that the people at the shopping center
had been working very hard to clean it up and to make it a good shopping
center. We like to think we run a family business. We thought that would be
a good home for us because our goals are pretty much the same as the shops
that are at already at Shelden Center. We contacted the owners, signed a lease
and now we are asking for a waiver for our alcohol and restaurant.
Mr. McCann: You signed the lease already?
Mr. Wathen: Yes sir, we have.
Mr. McCann: Is there any clause in that lease regarding getting waiver use to operate in
there? Are you stuck whether you get this approval or not?
Mr. Wathen: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are you willing to go in there without a limited service restaurant and are you
willing to go in there without an alcohol license?
Mr. Wathen: Yes.
Mr. McCann: So you are telling us you are going in there either way? It is a permitted use
but the limited service restaurant is not a permitted use and the servicing of
alcohol is a waiver request.
Mr. Wathen: Unfortunately when you have leases on three different facilities, we terminated
our lease agreement on Eight Mile Road. Our lease expired, self-terminated
on Plymouth Road. We definitely want to move off of Plymouth Road
because management is in Columbus, Ohio, and too difficult to deal with. We
are committed to move, yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Could you educate me and explain to me how your facility on Plymouth Road
is a family oriented restaurant?
Mr. Wathen: It is a family oriented facility.
Mr. Alanskas: In what way?
Mr. Wathen: We are owned and managed by family. Some of our family is always there to
run and operate it. Sunday's, for example, we call it family day. Kids can
come in and play billiards all day until 2:00 a.m., if they want to as long as
they are with a parent.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say kids, what age are you referring to?
Mr. Wathen: Any age as long as they are with a parent.
17773
Mr. Alanskas: I was there Monday at 12:00 noon and I walked into your facility on Plymouth
Road and there was a girl, a very young lady, laying on the couch reading a
book. There were two people at your bar area, a young man and a young lady,
�. and they were playing a poker machine.
Mr. Wathen: No. It is a video game.
Mr. Alanskas: I asked to see the manager and he said he was the manager. I told him I was
there from the Planning Commission and I asked him if he was always this
busy at lunchtime? There was nobody in the building. It was empty. I asked
him: "Do you need extra tables to go down on Plymouth Road?" He said:
"No, we don't need them." I asked him: "Well then, why do you want to
move?" He said it is strictly a monetary thing. Rent there is too high and
down where you are going, I believe, your rent will be a lot lower. My
concern is, when do you have a large capacity of people in here where you
need a larger building?
Mr. Wathen: The majority of our business is after 4:00 p.m. I am a little confused with the
scenario you described.
Mr. Alanskas: The young man had an earring in his ear. Do you know whom I mean?
Mr. Wathen: Very honestly, I don't, but I will find out.
Mr. Alanskas: He said he was the manager.
Mr. Wathen: He is not the manager. My son is the daytime manager.
Mr. Alanskas: I asked him his name and he would not give it to me. I was saying to myself,
if this place is empty now, why do you need a bigger building? Do you have
business at lunchtime? Because that day, there was nobody there.
Mr. Wathen: Our air conditioning and heat at the Plymouth Road facility, that you were in,
has been broken down for a year and a half.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. When it was not broken down, which you have been there more than a
year and a half, did you have customers at lunchtime?
Mr. Wathen: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: I was there twice and there was nobody in the building. I was not there in the
evening so I can't say that in regards to the evening business.
Mr. Wathen: We do not attract people for lunch. We attract people in the early afternoons
to play billiards and if they stay long enough, hopefully, they will have a
hamburger or something.
Mr. Alanskas: What time is early? Two or three o'clock?
17774
Mr. Wathen: Yes. Usually 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that mainly on Friday and Saturday or is that anytime during the week?
Mr. Wathen: Monday through Friday. Saturday and Sundays both we would get in earlier.
Mr. Alanskas: The young man said that when it is college time they get a lot of people in
there. On Eight Mile Road, how many customers do you have at that facility
on the average in the evening when you are busy?
Mr. Wathen: A dozen or two dozen.
Mr. Alanskas: You mean those 12 or 24 would not fit into your present building?
Mr. Wathen: Possibly.
Mr. Alanskas: You are saying you still need an additional 11 tables?
Mr. Wathen: We own 39 pool tables all together.
Mr. Alanskas: For both facilities?
Mr. Wathen: For both facilities.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you always fill them?
`. Mr. Wathen: During the wintertime we fill them up. Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: What are your hours of operation?
Mr. Wathen: We are open 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. six days a week, noon to 2:00 a.m. on
Sunday. The hours comply with the City of Livonia ordinances and there are
five billiard rooms in the City of Livonia. We all have the same hours.
Mrs. Koons: Seven days a week?
Mr. Wathen: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. or noon to 2:00 a.m.?
Mr. Wathen: Noon to 2:00 a.m. on Sunday only. 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. the rest of the
week.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I was on the Planning Commission when you came before us when you
bought the billiards on Eight Mile Road. At that time you said you were
17775
expanding and wanted another operation because business was going well on
Plymouth Road. On Eight Mile Road you have a beer and wine license?
'taw- Mr. Wathen: No sir. When we purchased it we came back to City Council and moved that
license to Plymouth Road.
Mr. LaPine: So there was a license there and you moved that license to the operation on
Plymouth Road. Is that correct?
Mr. Wathen: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: So you do not have a beer and wine license on Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Wathen: No sir. We do not.
Mr. LaPine: I have only been in your operation on Plymouth Road one time when you
opened your operation a number of years ago. On Eight Mile Road, I was
there a couple of times. As a matter of fact, when you went before the
Planning Commission I went there a few times and was very upset with some
of the people that were in the operation. I haven't been there since so I do not
know what is going on. How many square feet do you have in the two
operations now, the one on Eight Mile and the one on Plymouth Road?
Mr. Wathen: I have 11,500 sq. ft..
Mr. LaPine: You are actually not increasing square footage in this building that much.
Mr. Wathen: It is approximately the same - 11,200 sq. ft. to 11,500 sq. ft.
Mr. LaPine: As Mr. McCann pointed out and I want you to understand this, you can go in
there because it is a permitted use but you cannot serve food or liquor because
it is a waiver use. Do you understand that?
Mr. Wathen: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: When you came in on the one on Eight Mile Road you needed food because
that was part of the operation. How can you make a go here if you don't have
those two things you've got now?
Mr. Wathen: I don't know.
Mr. LaPine: To the owner of the property. I was out there and checked that property and I
understand from our staff notes that you are not going to do anything to the
outside of that building?
Mr. Hamburger: Yes sir. The building does need some work. We have actually met with the
City Planning Department because we put together a proposed plan to upgrade
the facade of the building.
17776
Mr. LaPine: Do your plans do anything to the parking lot, paving or fixing it up?
Mr. Hamburger: Part of our ability to execute those plans depends upon our ability to bring
in new tenants, such as Bogart's. Part of our plan also contemplated the
possibility of outlots. Those plans right now are on hold. They haven't been
formally submitted to the City. We just met with Mr. Taormina and some
representatives of the neighborhood association to solicit their opinion.
Mr. LaPine: I will tell you right off hand, if Bogart's decides to go in there without the beer
and wine license and without the food, I don't think they can make it just on
the billiards. We may have a tenant in there and before you know it he will be
gone.
Mr. Hamburger: That may be true but there is an executed lease and they intend to move in
and even if we didn't want them in there, they could move in anyway. We
have an executed lease Whether they can make a go of it is beyond the scope
of what we are here to discuss.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: If you were granted a waiver use for a limited service restaurant, which means
you would be limited to 30 seats, according to your plan it looks like there are
a lot more than 30 seats in the facility. How do you intend to limit your food
operation to those 30 seats?
sewMr. Wathen: It is a designated area and it is closed off. If you are playing billiards and you
want a sandwich we are going to ask you to come to the food service area and
eat. It will either be closed off with a brass railing or perhaps a 42-inch high
container wall on three sides of it. I want to use the brass railing because we
own it already and my wife wants a 42-inch high container wall which we
don't own and we will probably have to pay. Then we will probably do that.
Mr. Shane: According to my notes, you are going to have waitresses?
Mr. Wathen: Yes. In that big of a space we have to. It is about 145 feet from the front door
to the rear service counter. We have a service counter in the front of the store
but they would not be able to take food orders.
Mr. Shane: How much of your sales are represented by your sale of liquor?
Mr. Wathen: Quite honestly, I don't know. I can tell you that 72% of our total business is
billiards. The other 28% is split up between food and alcohol, video games
and darts. Exactly how those numbers break apart, my son could probably get
the information on the computer. I have just never bothered.
Mr. Shane: If you were denied the waiver use for both the liquor license and the food
service area, and particularly the liquor license, would your hours of operation
change?
`w
17777
Mr. Wathen: No sir.
Mr. Shane: They wouldn't?
`I.
Mr. Wathen: No sir. The billiard business in the City of Livonia operates on a 10:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m. basis and it has for a number of years. We would have to have the
same hours as our competitors do.
Mr. Shane: To the owner of the shopping center, when I was out there just to the east of
the building, there is a great deal of standing water in that area. There must be
a drainage problem there and I presume that when you upgrade the building,
and we hope that you do, that you will take care of that problem as well.
Mr. Hamburger: I am not aware that there is a drainage problem.
Mr. Shane: There is a lot of standing water. There must be a sewer problem or something.
Mr. Piercecchi: How essential is a Class C License to an operation like yours and basically,
do you have any idea how many billiard establishments have Class C licenses?
How essential is that to you?
Mr. Wathen: It is virtually life and death. There is an operation that opened recently called
Dave and Busters. It is a 55,000 sq. ft. self-contained facility. It cost
$15,000,000 to open. They do the same thing we do. They do the billiards.
They have a bar. They have a restaurant and they have video games. That is
the kind of thing my wife and I are trying to compete with. There are two or
,`os' three very nice billiard rooms in the City of Canton. They all have billiards,
liquor and food. There are a couple in Farmington and Farmington Hills.
Twenty five years ago, it was not an issue. Today the billiard industry has
grown up and it is becoming more of an adult entertainment facility. This year
the game of billiards has been approved as an Olympic sport. Professional
pool players are now making a lot of money. Nothing like golfers but they are
making a lot of money. It is very much a growing industry still. We opened
April 1990 or 1991, I have forgotten. In what I call the metropolitan Detroit
area, which is Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. There have been 51
facilities opened like ours, fifty-one in a nine year span. I don't know of a one
of them, of the new ones, that does not have a liquor license and a food service
license.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I am asking you this question, we haven't heard from the public
as yet, but this may or may not be one of the major issues that concerns them.
Thank you for your answer.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, we requested that we get a report from the Police Department
about the operation and if there had been any complaints or problems. Did we
receive anything from the Police Department?
Mr. Taormina: There is a report included in your packet.
r..
17778
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Sir, can you tell me the length of your lease?
Mr. Wathen: Ten years with a five year option.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. Wathen: We plan to stay there.
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?
Beth Mac, 11304 Arden. I just wanted to say that I have lived in this neighborhood my entire
life. My parents still live on West Chicago. I moved back to this
neighborhood with my husband with budding teenagers for the quality of life
in the neighborhood. For what is there and for what is not there. A pool hall
at Shelden Center, my 14 year old son said to me, "Why are you going to this
meeting, Mom?" I said because this not what we want to see there. He said,
"It would be great. My thirteen year old sister and I could hang out there."
This is not what we want in our neighborhood. We really don't need a place
for our youngsters to hang out especially with a liquor license. That is all I
have to say.
Richard Kent, 11040 Ingram. I am on the board of the Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners
Association. In fact, I am the dedicated liaison person to the City. I have
some official clout. I see Mr. Wozniak is here and he has been in the
neighborhood a long time so I know he is well know. What I want to say is
that Shelden Center is a very important part of our community in southern
Livonia. My wife goes to the grocery store there almost every day. I go to the
library once a week with my kids. In the summer I will be going over to the
pool a couple times a week. I go to the Rite Aid and buy beer. I have nothing
against having a drink occasionally. But Shelden Center compared to most
other shopping centers in Livonia is less than it ought to be. It could be a lot
nicer to look at. It should be cleaner. It should have more up-beat stores. It
should be a place that people want to go. It shouldn't be something you wish
were better. That is what is it is right now. We all wish it were better. It can
be better. It can be a lot more attractive and we want to see a good plan for the
whole area. It could include a billiard hall. That is my personal feeling. The
billiard hall itself isn't necessarily bad. However, we don't want to see a nickel
and dime approach to the re-development of Shelden Center. We would like
to see a nice plan, well thought out. That addresses types of stores. That is
going to work with the development across the road, which will include
housing, we believe, which will relate to the fact that there is a library and pool
facilities nearby. We want something that will address circulation. The traffic
problems at that corner, it is a very busy corner, landscaping so that it looks
attractive. We want to see an overall plan. I know Mr. Shane you know what
°�'� I am talking about. That is what we want to see. We haven't seen it yet. We
17779
have been approached by the owner, Mr. Hamberger. We told him, look what
is happening at Six Mile, with Busch's at Six Mile and Newburgh. It looks
`t; fine now. It didn't look like that a couple of years ago. He didn't seem to be
�r. listening to what we were saying. We kind of feel like he is doing an end run
around us and he is trying to do things without a full plan. We want to see a
plan. That is all I have to say.
Josephine Ballert, 11405 Cranston. I am a former teacher in the Livonia Public Schools. I
have taught for 26 years and we have lived in Old Rosedale Gardens since
1954. I believe this is a wrong mix, completely, for that area. We have
students that are coming to that library at night. We don't need liquor license
right nearby. I don't think it is a very good influence for kids coming in.
We have a YMCA pool right near there. At the present we have some nice
stores there. We have a nice neighborhood but with a pool hall coming in,
billiard and maybe even video games for all we know. I just feel it is a bad
influence. Now we have stores that I think are good. Perhaps a good
hardware store, we could use something like that, or maybe another kind of
store but not a billiard hall. Not where there are young people around. I am
hoping the present owners will take into consideration the kind of people that
are in that area. Plymouth Road is being developed and becoming nicer. We
don't need 24 hour lighting with people coming in and out, especially when
they are drinking. I just feel it is the wrong thing to have. Thank you.
Tom Wozniak, 11407 Cranston. I would like to say I think the investors who bought Shelden
Center made a very wise choice. In previous studies, particularly by Meijer's
when they were looking at the property across the street, they looked at the
\w
median income of the home around that particular intersection and the
smallest circle of homes around the intersection had the highest median
income. As the circle got larger the income actually dropped. There is a lot
of people that have money to spend on products that could be offered by
Shelden Center. I agree with Richard Kent when he said that mall could be a
lot m ore than it is right now. We would like to see a complete plan for the
development of that mall. We are willing to support it and we have lots of
ideas on things we would like to see in that mall. We don't want to start out
with an antagonistic relationship with the new owners. We really would like
to get together with them. Talk to them about what would be the best things
for that mall. It is a local mall. It is not on a freeway. It is not like people
are going to come off the freeway and go to that mile down the road to do
something in that mall. It is a mall used by the neighborhood, by the
children in the neighborhood and the adults in the neighborhood. There are a
lot of things we would like to see there. We are inviting the people who
purchased this mall, including Mr. Hamberger, to sit down and talk with us
and get an overall plan that will make that more than a strip mall thank you.
Dr. Janet Afonso, 9918 Hubbard Street. A library has been mentioned. A swimming pool
has been mentioned. I just want to make sure that everyone present be aware
of how close this proposed liquor license is going to be. The public pool is
just right across the parking lot from where this billiard hall with the liquor
�"' license is being proposed. Just directly across from the parking lot is where
17780
children will be riding into the swimming pool parking lot on their bicycles.
They will be coming across the parking lot from Shelden Center, often from
the neighborhoods that are around there. Also, the library is right on the
,,ier- little street that comes into the swimming pool, the little street that also
comes into the parking lot for the proposed liquor license hall. When people
come out of the billiard hall, will be able to, at night, drive across the parking
lot from the library. Everyone in the neighborhood knows what I am taking
about. When you drive across the parking lot of the library it allows you to
avoid going on to Plymouth. I am suggesting that people who may feel like
they are slightly impaired to drive which can happen in this kind of context.
I am proposing that it is quite likely that they will cut across the library
parking lot and turn right on Loveland and go down to Orangelawn and drive
all the way across Rosedale Gardens to Merriman, all those little stop signs
on those very narrow streets of Rosedale Gardens to avoid going out on the
very busy street where their impaired driving might be better detected. I am
very concerned about impaired drivers taking that route through the
neighborhood. I am very concerned about the combination of young people
going to the pool on their bicycles. The pool operates most definitely during
those hours of operation that we heard including into the evenings when they
have special evenings for young people and for families to come to the pool
in the evening. The library sometimes has evening programs as well. The
24-hour a day grocery store that is just two doors from this proposed bar
where you often see mothers of small children going in there at night
because they can't go during the day because they are so busy and they want
to go at night and do their shopping while their kids are at home with the
husband. I personally am not going to feel as comfortable going into a
soar
grocery store in the evening when I know that there is this kind of possible
liquor activity going on in the parking lot. You can also go and return your
videos late in the evening. I am not going to feel comfortable returning
videos to entertainment tonight, as comfortable, knowing that there is
drinking of alcohol going on right there. There is also a brand new park. I
assume it is a City park. I assume that all that beautiful equipment that was
placed right behind the Shelden Pool, I assume it was placed there by us, the
citizens. It is right there too. So please consider this location and all those
family and small children activities that might go on in that area.
David Skay, 27205 Cumberland Court, Southfield, Michigan. Right now I feel like Custer at
the last stand. I am in favor of this man. I've got a story for you. Ten years
ago I met Larry and Marge, his wife. About two years after that I became a
patient with renal disease. I was on dialysis for 7-1/2 years. I went into a
crunching period of my life where I thought I was going to commit suicide.
I went to see a physiatrists and he told me don't do what you normally do
when you are alone. Do things that make you happy. Always be in a
happiness environment. Anybody couldn't have given me more happiness
than those billiard rooms did, both the one on Eight Mile and the one on
Plymouth Road. We became a family. All of my good friends are now in
that pool room. It is just wonderful. We had a tragic event and a good event.
The tragic event was that we found that Larry's youngest son was murdered a
�'�' year ago. He was found in Detroit. Just dumped in the street. Everybody
17781
felt bad, not just Larry and Marge and Larry Jr., we all felt bad. We all went
to the funeral. Then about a month and a half later a got a kidney transplant.
The only ones, other than my family, that sent me any cards or called me up
'tar, in Ann Arbor were those people. When Larry asked me to give him some
moral support, how could I possibly say no. That is my story. Thank you.
Tim Lafferty, 9927 Berwick. I am the former President, Vice President and current board
member of Old Rosedale Gardens. I just wanted to address these comments
more towards the new owners of the development than to the specific new
pool hall owners. Mike McGee and I met a couple of months ago with Mark,
the Mayor, Maureen Brosnan, Jack Engebretson and the new owners. We sat
across the table from them. Jack Engebretson specifically told them, face-to-
face, deal up front with these people or you are going to have a big fight on
your hands. To my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, we have not been
contacted. We gave them phone numbers, business cards, e-mail addresses to
contact us and I feel back-doored. I know a lot of these people are going to
feel back-doored on the activity that is going on. I understand that there are
also plans for a White Castle/Church's and an outpost building. They can
expect another fight on that front as well. If they had worked with us a little
bit on the front side a lot of this could have been avoided. Those are my
comments.
Rick Rainville, 9928 Hubbard, Old Rosedale Gardens. More than 60 years ago, founding
members of the Old Rosedale Gardens had a great vision. They were well
ahead of their time. They established a neighborhood that was interconnected
'tow. by quaint streets and sidewalks and surrounded that neighborhood with family
businesses that allowed people to have a self-contained neighborhood, if they
so wished. To me that is a great treasure of Livonia, that neighborhood and
the fact that you can walk to your grocery store, to the library, to the schools,
to your church and to parks and pools and never have to get out onto a busy
street or worry about your safety. When we moved to Rosedale Gardens
several years ago this was the vision we had in mind for our three year old
son. We very much envisioned that we would grow up in that neighborhood
learning how to ride a bike, learning how to roller blade with complete safety,
which he has, without any worry. I am concerned that some of the freedom
that we would like to have that we feel that we have might be taken away
somewhat. I am not speaking out against any certain business, but I am
saying that if I feel that way there may be other people that feel maybe it is
not quite so safe to let out kids go out and ride their bikes or walk to the
schools or parks or the library or the pool. Once you start seeing some of that
chipped, the neighborhood loses some value. It is such a great neighborhood.
I think it is one of the finest in Livonia. I too used to live in Naperville,
Illinois, and I know what good neighborhoods are about. This is a great
neighborhood because it is interconnected and kids can walk and bike
wherever they need to be within that neighborhood. Once that starts to
disappear, I am afraid we are going to lose a great treasure. I am not sure
what the answer is but that is my concern. Thank you.
17782
Laura Toy, 32663 Five Mile and I own a business 32109 Plymouth Road. My concern
tonight is I would like this body to deliberate in regards to this being a control
zone. When I was on the Livonia City Council, Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road were control zones which meant a lot of this came to the
City before it got to this august body and the City Council. Things have
changed since I haven't been on the City Council. I am very concerned when
I hear about the owner talking about the outlots. When we were on the City
Council we took great pride in not allowing outlots in a lot of these areas.
While I realize we are doing a lot of things with Plymouth Road I have been
there 21 years with my business partner, Colleen Siembor, in a flower shop
that started back in 1978 and continues to this day. I have a vested interest in
that, as well a financial interest in that. I would hope that my City leaders,
much as yourself, and my City Council will send a loud message, as many of
these residents spoke to. We need to look at this entire area, in its entirety
and a complex plan. We don't need to piecemeal this area together when we
are sticking the kinds of dollars we are sticking in down there as well as the
dollars I just brought you back from Lansing for that Plymouth Road
improvement. I don't want to see those kinds of things occur. When we were
with Bob Bennett we did a restaurant study. It was said then that there were
too many restaurants on Plymouth Road, if you recall. That is, again, as we
look to this, let's not piecemeal Plymouth Road. There are tremendous people
down there. There are tremendous businesses down there. It is a wonderful
part of the City. I know that we have just put up new signs in our City.
People still come first and I would hope that that is true and that you hear
these residents and these business owners loud and clear as you begin and end
some of the development on this road. Thank you.
Dan Steel, 11037 Ingram. I am on the corner of Ingram and Elmira. An earlier speaker
addressed the issue of cut-through traffic and I want to be a little bit more
specific on that. It is cut-through traffic from people leaving a bar. I think
that you would always have to deal with cut-through traffic any time you have
a place selling alcohol, but I would like for you to consider the uniqueness in
this particular subdivision particularly on Elmira, where I live and where a
number of other people live along there too. There are no sidewalks. It is a
very narrow street and cars are parked there. To call Elmira a street is only
half true. It really does function as a sidewalk and if you went out there
tonight, or any other night, you would see a lot of people walking, riding,
roller blading, strollers along Elmira. So I think there is a unique concern for
cut-through traffic along Elmira. It is only one block off of Plymouth. Any
time you get any type of a traffic jam or traffic slowdown, it has been
particularly bad lately, anytime you get a traffic problem on Plymouth Road
between Farmington and Merriman you get a tremendous amount of cut-
through traffic on Elmira as well as a number of other streets in Rosedale
Gardens. I would like for you to consider the narrowness of the streets and
the absence of sidewalks as a problem unique and one that should be
addressed here today. Thank you.
Barbara Brown, 32429 Wisconsin. I live in the Rosedale Gardens area on the states side. I
�"" represent the kids of the neighborhood. I am the Grant Elementary PTA
17783
President. I think I have to second everybody's opinion here. This is truly
the best kept secret in town. It is a neighborhood of children. My children
ride their bicycles up there and I think it is a concern. You don't want alcohol
going on. They go to Entertainment Tonight to rent videos. When they are at
Shelden Pool they run across to Larry's to get a pop. There is the Hard Ice
Cream Cafe around the corner that they go and get their ice cream cones
from. We feel very secure in our neighborhood allowing our kids to do this
because it is a very safe area. They get to go to the library. They get to go to
the pool by themselves. I personally don't have a problem with people
drinking. I don't have a problem with billiards but this is a community of
children and this is the wrong area for it. There are many commercial areas
that have more parking available and it is a better draw for that type of
commercial business. Thank you.
Ray Setlock, 11309 Arden in Old Rosedale Gardens. I wasn't going to come up here today. I
was going to stay in the back of the room until I heard our new owners
response to the flooding on the one side of Shelden Center and I thought this
was ludicrous. I heard a lot of good things about that owner until tonight.
Until he finally spoke. That told us a whole lot. Larry from Larry's
Foodland, I bring that up because Larry for our neighborhood is an icon. It is
not because he has the best cuts of meat or the best produce in town, no
offense, it is mostly what he does for the neighborhood and the surrounding
community, for the churches, for the schools, for the neighborhood
associations. Anybody that needs something, Larry is there for them. This
neighborhood has always gone to bat for Larry because of that. Larry is a
`.. very profitable business. Larry is a good businessman. Sometimes if he
needs to be shrewd, he can be shrewd and that is fine. We understand that.
Overall Larry is a good businessman and that is the way to conduct business
if you are going to have a healthy relationship with the surrounding
neighborhoods. What I heard here tonight is ludicrous. I listened to the
responses of the new owners concerning the flooding and some things going
gone. Our neighborhood is full of doctors, lawyers, teachers, college
professors, airline pilots, engineers, you name it. I think we were being talked
down to tonight by him. He has a fight on his hands. Thanks.
Stan Stausch, 10009 Farmington. I have the same concerns as Old Rosedale Gardens even
though I am on the other side of Farmington Road. I have an eight year old
and a ten year old that can ride their bikes into that plaza. Shelden Pool is
open until 9:00 p.m. This gentleman said his prime time business is after 4:00
p.m. My kids get off the bus at 4:10 p.m. So this is a true concern of mine
that they can use that facility the way they are at this time. It is not just
Rosedale Gardens, it seems to be on the other side of this restaurant/bar.
Thank you.
Matt Harb,14103 Merriman. I just want to let you know that I have four kids. Next year I will
have one kid in four different schools. I have known Larry for a number of
years. I have known Larry for about 15 years and at no time have I ever been
scare to take any of my kids up to Larry's place and have a cheeseburger and a
'sew beer and let them play video games. I have never had a problem. I have
17784
known this man for 10 to 15 years. I don't think the pool room is an issue.
The pool is not a bad word anymore. It is actually a good word. Pool is a
good word. Pool is a sport and a lot of people go to pool rooms to play pool
and I just don't think the pool hall is a bad word.
Ryan Hansen, 9909 Loveland. As far as this business goes, it may or may not be the right
thing for the area. I deal with Shelden Center all the time. Living down the
street where the cut-street runs into, I do see the cut-through traffic to get off
of Plymouth. I just don't believe this is the right thing to have. It is a quiet
neighborhood in the evening and something that is open until 2:00 a.m. where
a lot of traffic will be running down the cut-streets, the trash blowing in, is not
appealing to me. I don't feel this is what we need at this time and I would like
to see the plan for the Shelden Center.
Ann Farrell, 11450 Loveland, which is directly across the street from the library. I have a 13
year old daughter who right now feels like a prisoner in her own home. I
guarantee you if a pool hall goes in she will be. Please don't let that happen to
her. My second issue is with the Church's/White Castle. I fight daily to keep
the garbage picked up off my street.
Mr. McCann: That is not before us. I am sure we will have a lot of fun if it does come
before us, but we are having enough fun tonight with our own topics.
Mrs. Farrell: Please don't make my daughter a prisoner in her own home.
Paul Miller, 31710 W. Chicago, Old Rosedale Gardens. Although I agree with a lot of what
has been said, there are a couple of things that I don't think have been talked
about. One issue I want to address, I want to thank you for being able to be
up here. The fact that that flag is there and it is not British means I can be up
here. If you look around in this group here I think you will see two or three
people that are in my age group. Something new has happened to me as part
of the process of natural maturation. There is a restaurant at Shelden Center
that you don't see many 20 somethings in there. You see a lot of people who
are in their golden years, such as I am, it if difficult for us to get out of the
way of cars zipping through that parking lot. We in Rosedale Garden, and
God bless those people that have been for years doing this, fighting for every
scrape to protect that neighborhood. I am scared to death about piecemealing
outlots and dividing up what we are trying to turn into something really nice.
I first started working at Burroughs in Plymouth in January 1956. I lived in
Detroit then but that was when I first got to know Shelden Center. It has been
something this whole time; well, didn't we almost make it. It has been a
disappointment. It is hard to believe it is a disappointment when something
like that is needed and it is supported from a neighborhood around it. I was
up there this morning and got my hair cut. I have a little British car that I
won't drive through that puddle up because I am afraid it will get lost. I think
what I am trying to say is a lot of effort and a lot of work and a lot of energy,
and sweat and blood has gone into improving Plymouth Road. To try to keep
the southern part of Livonia from being chopped off and sliding away to
17785
somewhere else. These people have worked hard and the City has worked
hard. Please don't destroy that. Thank you.
,_, Linda Bentley, 9206 Colorado Street, Livonia. I have a 14 year old daughter. I have a 16
year old son. If we get a pool hall at Shelden Center, she won't ever get out of
the house because she won't be allowed down there and him, if he gets out of
the house, that is were he is going to be. Anybody who has a car or anybody
who has a bike, that is where they are going to be. At 2:00 a.m. in the
morning we are going to have to go down there to haul our kids out. I have
heard this is a family thing. Do you guys have bouncers to bounce these kids
out? We do have curfews. I would like to think, at some point, that if they
have facilities open until 2:00 a.m. they would make sure that with the curfew
that children will be sent home. But somehow I think if they have money in
their pocket they are not going to leave.
Mr. McCann: Let me clear something up real quick. The issue before us tonight is not
whether or not they can put in a billiard hall. He can open that up today. It is
a permitted use. He has a signed lease. Pool tables can be in there. The two
issues are whether or not he can have a waiver use item#3, to operate a
limited service restaurant and#4, whether or not he can have a waiver use to
operate a Class C liquor license out of that establishment. Those are the two
issues before us. We really have no control over the landlord this evening.
Ms. Bentley: How does the Planning Commission plan to help these people make sure that
our 14 or 16 year old, or our lovely daughters who are 13 and come across as
21, don't go in there and drink?
Niro.
Mr. McCann: Absolutely. Number one, if we don't feel it is appropriate, we are a
recommending body. We will make a recommendation to the City Council
whether or not it is appropriate to have a Class C liquor license. That is one of
the issues up before us tonight. The other issue is whether to allow a limited
service restaurant. I believe the owner said people under 18 years of age are
not allowed in there without being escorted by an adult.
Ms. Bentley: No. That was on parent day, on Sunday. I didn't hear anything said about the
rest of the time.
Mr. McCann: That is something that we can try and deal with.
Mr. Wathen: The Livonia City Ordinance dictates that you must be 17 years of age or older
to get in a billiard room in the City of Livonia. We card virtually everybody
for age.
Ms. Bentley: I also think that the hours of operation until 2:00 a.m. is just inappropriate for
this area. Everybody talks about our pool and library. We also have a senior
center right there. We also have two ball diamonds, where you came down
Farmington, they have ballgames playing. We have football games there. We
have cheerleading girls. We have a lot of activity in those parks. We even have
�"' an ice rink that is available to us during the winter, if it freezes enough. How
17786
can I let a 13 year old girl go down with a pool hall on the corner? Especially if
they are serving alcohol. This is my issue. I have a problem. I have teenagers.
I don't need an establishment in the area making it easier for them.
Mr. McCann: I understand that. Your objection is to the use of alcohol in the building?
Ms. Bentley: Hugely.
Martin Nederveld, 9627 Woodring, Livonia. On Friday, June 9, approximately 2:30 a.m. I
was awakened to the sound of breaking glass in a neighboring property. The
police were called to come and investigate the activities in the area. In regards
to the proposed liquor license and restaurant establishment at a facility, I
believe that the hours of operation and the serving of alcohol in the area might
lead to additional unwanted activities, similar to what I experienced last week,
therefore I am opposed to the establishment.
Frank McKay, 37474 Fountain Park. The pool halls has been my hobby for 65 years. I have
the place go from where they were dumps and they were unwelcome tenants to
where they are real nice clean places and they are welcome tenants. They have
a place in Westland, Hunter Boulevard, that has a Class C license that sells
beer, sells sandwiches. They have about 20 tables. They have no problems. In
fact a lot of the pool rooms that have opened up recently are really beautiful and
are an improvement to the neighborhood. Thank you.
John Bagazinski, 11404 Ingram. To just point out a few things, if we are consolidating two
businesses into this one, in this boom economy, what is going to happen when
we go into a down turn? Is it going to be an eyesore? That is a concern. As a
Planning Committee I hope that we can pursue the owners to see a full plan of
what they would like to do to that development. Finally, I just hope tonight that
we can either table this discussion or vote no on the liquor license until we see a
full plan. Thank you.
Al Ballert, 11405 Cranston. I only have one concern and that is billiard tables, but cloaked
underneath are the video games. That will attract the kids, not the pool tables.
The kids are going to be over in the swimming pools. They are going to be in
the tennis courts. They are going to come over to this pool table, from one kind
of pool to another. I went to the library today. As was mentioned earlier, you
always cut through there. The other day the water was about this high out there
in the one part. Anyway, this term "pool room", is really going to attract the
kids by these video games which you don't mention much. They won't stay
until 2:00 a.m. but they will stay as late as they can. Thank you.
Denise Barlage, 11030 Arden, a Rosedale Garden resident for eight years. I like to play pool,
drink beer on occasion, don't have any teenagers, but understand what
everybody is saying. I am totally in support of the ban of this proposal to bring
in food and an alcohol license for all of the aforementioned reasons. I also want
to add that we are looking at major development across the street at the Mai Kai
property. This does not fit with the design and the plan of what we are looking
'_" for the area. I feel very bad, I want to say on record, for this Larry and Marge.
17787
I feel that they have almost been duped, although they are adults and they have
been in the business for a number of years. It sound like it has gotten this far
and has to go before the Planning Commission and thank God it is America and
',taw we can voice our concerns but that it has gotten this far and here we are. I can't
see that there is going to be any success of that business and I am very much
disheartened and offended by Mr. Hamburger with regards to what has gone on
of his lack faith and breach of etiquette in aforementioned meetings with the
City and neighborhood residents about the plans for the area. I don't think he
understands this is Livonia and we have community and his flippant attitude
about the success or demise of the Bogart Billiard Cafe isn't related to what we
are here for tonight. It is exactly what we are here for tonight. That is the word
planning. We are a City that plans and we need for you to make good decisions
for the southern Livonia area. At some point I am going to come back to our
neighborhood association to pursue further about this control zone that Laura
Toy mentioned. About the protectiveness of the area so that we don't have to
get this far and have it be an unsuccessful opportunity. I understand what you
said, Mr. McCann, about obviously a lease has been signed and obviously I
think you folks are concerned because you went that far to ask if a lease has
been signed. Here the property is going to become a billiard hall but it doesn't
have to be the full drinking and eating establishment that we don't want based
on the concerns that we have. Again, we've got older folks and younger folks
that come up there at all hours. I go to the grocery store at 2:00 a.m. I don't
necessarily want to be going at 2:00 a.m. I think Larry and Marge seem like
very nice people and I respect them for what they are trying to do and run a
private business. But they cannot control what their potential patrons will do
'tarand this is the concern I have. I have reason to be that they are moving off
Plymouth Road at their current location across from Wonderland because it is
too far back. They are not visible. They are not getting the business. The
Eight Mile location is not getting the business because they don't have the
liquor license. If you give them the full liquor license and food at Plymouth
Road, although we think it is a pretty trashy Shelden Center, right now that
needs improvement, it is that much closer to Plymouth Road. It is closer to the
Ford plant. You are going to get more people at all hours of the day and night.
It has more potential than Ford clientele and increase in business, which might
be good for Larry and Marge but it might not be good for our neighborhood in
terms of what might go on before, during and after hours.
Casey Stiko, 32825 W. Chicago. I have been there since 1954. You people are talking about
a liquor license and food for this pool hall. Just a few years ago, if you think
back, we had Frankie's. Who said that we check the age of all the children and
people coming into the dance hall. It was closed because they were selling
liquor to minors. You try and tell me that this gentleman is going to prove to
me that he will not have any minors coming in at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. getting
liquor. That is a bunch of crap. That's all I've got to say.
Linda Steckel, 11407 Ingram. We've been there approximately 21 years. I have three
children: one eight, one fifteen and one who is going to be seventeen. When I
first heard what was happening with Shelden as far as the pool hall coming in, I
`, was upset. As I listen to all the people in the audience, there are a lot of things I
17788
agree with. But since the lease is signed, he is going to be in there anyway.
The pool tables are going to be in there. We need to work together. What I am
suggesting maybe Larry and his wife could curtail the hours. Maybe put in air
hockey or darts. I always play with my kids. I like to go to pool halls and play
with them. I like to shoot darts. I like to do all these things. I think the liquor
license is out of the question. I don't think we need it. We can have good
family entertainment. We can work with Larry and his wife. They can make
some money at their business. The whole neighborhood could participate and
make it a fun event for everyone instead of this, "We don't want liquor." "We
don't want food." He is already in so we have to work together to try build a
strong relationship so he can be part of our community too. I am not opposed
to the pool hall. It has grown on me as far as my older kids. They want to do
something besides their bikes and go to the park. They want to have someplace
to go. This could be an ideal place if the hours were right. I am not opposed to
a food license. I think that is wonderful. The kids can have burgers. They can
have milkshakes. Let's try to come up with an idea that we can work together
and stop trying to undermine everything we are trying to build as far as the
community goes. Make it work for the kids and for the families. Hopefully
Larry and his wife will work with us on that end too.
Larry Lacuda, 3400 Country Court, Trenton but I actually reside at 33151 Plymouth Road
which is Larry's Foodland. I wasn't going to speak tonight but in light of a
couple of things I just heard, first I want to thank everybody for the kind words.
The lady who was just at the microphone I think made some very good points.
Over the last ten years since I have been at Larry's Foodland, we have worked
4.. very hard to make Shelden Center a safe family oriented place that people could
come to at 10:00 p.m. or 1:00 p.m. The kids can come for a bottle of pop. All
of those kind of things that it a nice center. I am very appreciative of the fact
that this is a local community and a local community grocery store and I hope
that your thoughts tonight will keep that in mind for everybody is trying to say.
If Mr. Hamburger can work something out with Larry and his wife, that the
pool hall, not the visions of the old pool halls some of us have had in the old
days. Billiards today are different. If something can work, that the billiard hall
is there and it works good for the center, then maybe we should consider that.
My own personal feelings on alcohol and everything else, I have to be
concerned as a businessman and I know myself that some of you folks are
going to feel very uncomfortable if all of a sudden you don't feel safe again. To
you folks I would say as a businessman in the City of Livonia, I need these
people. I need them to feel safe. I need them to want to be able to come to the
grocery store, to the entertainment store, to the drug store. But if there is
something Larry and Mr. Hamburger can work out, the billiard hall fits into the
philosophy of what you folks are trying to do, with what you are doing with the
George Burns Theatre, it is an upscale thing. I have seen renderings from Mr.
Hamburger for the improvements that they do plan for Shelden Center. I agree
with everyone of you. We definitely need a little bit more. There is no doubt
about it but I will give him the benefit of the doubt as the new owner that I have
seen sketches already. They are very nice. It is a substantial improvement to
the facade of Shelden Center. I guess, it has to go back to you. You have heard
`"' everybody say they don't want alcohol. They don't want the restaurant part, but
17789
I think everybody accepts the fact that if something can get worked that fits into
the vision of keeping our kids safe, keeping this a family type of operation, your
local community center, then that is the part we need to think about. He is
coming in and I know he already has his lease and he is going to be there. If
that be the case, then maybe we need to give the benefit of the doubt to let's try
and maybe help him be successful. But also, to demand from Mr. Hamburger
that he is going to keep a tight rein on the Shelden Center and that he is not
going to let this get out of hand. If it gets out of hand, then we are back here
and demand that it get straightened out. Let's keep trying. I think over the last
10 years everyone of us here has worked very hard to get our place to the way it
is today. The improvements are coming. There is going to be some fixing up.
I know it's coming. I think we are going to get what we want. I thank you for
all your support.
Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing but I am going to give the last opportunity for
the petitioner to come up and answer some of the questions. I would like for
him to address, I think he has a good feeling of the communities' feeling with
regard to moving the liquor license to that location and it is not a favorable.
Would you be able to exist without a liquor license at that location if you had a
restaurant and limited service food there?
Mr. Wathen: I very honestly don't know. When we started planning this transition I did not
factor that equation into anything. As we indicated before, alcohol is
somewhere around 20% of our total business. Unfortunately when you say
something is 20% it may contribute very heavily to the bottom line which is the
profit portion of the picture. I really don't know if I can or not but I am going to
�.. have to give it a try because I don't have any other option. I have committed to
a lease. I have committed to moving out of the two buildings I am in. We
simply have to do it.
Mr. McCann: I am going to be honest with you. We have had the Public Hearing. I have
heard both sides, and my inclination is not to set you up for failure. I don't
believe that a liquor license is appropriate there. I don't think you will be
getting one from us. I don't see it with this kind of community support against
it or that you will be getting a liquor license from the Council at that location.
Mr. Wathen: I already have the liquor license.
Mr. McCann: But to move it to that location. I really don't want to vote for a restaurant
there if you are telling me that without the liquor license you can't make it and
we are going to have the business go in there and fail right away.
Mrs. Wathen: I understand these people's concern with liquor, maybe bad driving in the
parking lot. If I had little children again roaming around the neighborhood, I
might feel the same. I don't know. Would it be any different in their minds if
we had a limited liquor license which allows us to sell beer and wine, not hard
liquor?
17790
Mr. McCann: You've got to understand, I think it was made pretty clear, you are adjacent to
a City library, a public pool, public park and a residential area. It is just
completely different than your location on Plymouth Road.
Mrs. Wathen: Which is an industrial park behind us.
Mr. McCann: Having all these neighborhood activities surrounding your business, it is not
appropriate for a liquor license. I don't see it happening.
Mrs. Wathen: It is a little bit different when people are drinking when they are shooting a
game of pool than when they are drinking hard liquor.
Mr. Wathen: We are not a bar. We will never become the neighborhood bar. We are not a
place people go to and drink. I understand the concerns of these people and
frankly, I have a lot of empathy for them. But they are predicating our
performance on someone else's past history. If they will look at our facility on
Plymouth Road at Woodland Square now, we have never been ticketed for
having minors in the building. We've never been ticketed for serving alcohol
after hours. We've never been ticketed for getting people drunk. I only know
one person who was in our building that got to where I thought he was
intoxicated and I had to cut him off He happens to be a friend of mine, be
that as it may.
Mr. Alanskas: I wasn't going to bring this up but we are all looking at this letter from our
Police Chief. Since 1996, you have had 10 false alarms (R.A. or B & E).
r.. There were four larcenies from autos, four larcenies in a building, three
M.D.O.P., I don't even know what that is, one for a large fight for 15 people or
more. There is an arrest for marijuana, three; cocaine, one; loitering where
drugs are used, one. But our Police Chief says the number and type of
incidents experienced at this business are not out of the ordinary, nor do they
raise any specific concerns for the police department. In other words, for this
type of business, this is acceptable amount of things that they have done. But
you have had problems on Plymouth Road. I think where you would be closer
to children, you would have a lot more.
Mr. McCann: Let me clarify, this does include the parking lot, which is a joint parking lot
with other businesses in that area. Not all of these incidents necessarily arise
out of his business experienced at this business are not out of the ordinary, nor
do they raise any specific concerns for the police department. They didn't say
for this type of business. It is just not out of the ordinary for any business in
Livonia. A number of these items may have been in the parking lot.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Wathen, at either of your current locations, do you teach or instruct
billiards?
Mr. Wathen: No. We do not. At the new facility, I have already signed a contract with a
BCA instructor, which is a Billiard Congress of America certified instructor,
�,.. who happens to be female and she will be teaching at our new place twice a
week. Yes.
17791
Mrs. Koons: Thinking along the same lines of actually making it somewhat of a family place
�.. or somewhat of a place for young people to have something productive to do
rather than to have nothing to do, which is a concern of mine and many people
in the community, philosophically you could switch your whole business
philosophy to the sport of billiards rather than the relaxation of billiards and do
some instructing, even some competition with the young people.
Mr. Wathen: What we were going to do was offer free instructions a couple of days a week
to 16 and under with a parent. Hopefully, you might find a future champion out
of a group like that.
Mrs. Koons. I personally would like young people to know they could enjoy activities and
sports without alcohol. For me, that is the main reason, in addition to the area
you are in, that I would see that if we were going to take that turn, that alcohol
would be even less appropriate. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, the one thing that kind of baffles me is that you knew
coming here that possibly you would not get the approval for the liquor and
you already signed a 10 year lease with an option for five years, at least that is
what you said.
Mr. Wathen: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: So in your mind, by doing that, with a chance of not getting this, you are
saying you can make it without liquor or food because I have already signed a
10 year lease, I am committed there to do this. This is what I am hearing from
you that you can do this without liquor or food because you have already
signed a 10 year lease.
Mr. Wathen: Very honestly, looking at the Shelden Center and the wide open spaces
around it, not knowing anything about the history of a bar being in that area
prior, I never dreamed there would never a problem of any kind, frankly.
Mr. Hamburger: Sir, if I may. I just want to respond. We do want to be a good neighbor.
We do plan on rebuilding and upgrading the center. It was with that goal in
mind that we met with representatives of the homeowners association and Mr.
Taormina and his group to talk about our plans. We are interested in being a
good neighbor. We do want to solicit the community's input. That is why we
met with these folks. Getting input and giving folks a cart blanche one way or
the other are two different things. I would also say that several people
commented upon us going through the back door. After the meeting we had, it
was very clear that we had already signed a lease with Bogart's prior to that
meeting. This should not have been a surprise to anybody.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order, first with regard to item#3, for a limited service
restaurant.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
17792
#6-113-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13,
�... 2000, on Petition 2000-04-02-17 by Bogarts Billiard Cafe requesting wavier
use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in connection with a
billiard parlor proposed to be located within Shelden Center on the South side
of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-04-02-17 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
3) That this area of the City is currently well served with restaurant uses;
and
4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional restaurant uses in this
area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I do have a few comments. I would
`.., like to start out by thanking everybody in the audience, including the
petitioner. We have all sat up here on a lot of controversial issues. You
respected everybody that got up to speak tonight. Whether they were for the
pool hall or whether they were against it. You gave them respect for their
opinion. That is what makes things work tonight. I think this is one of the
nicest groups of people I have seen come before us on a controversial issue.
You all had important things to say. We, as a body, try to listen to everybody
being residents ourselves and give the best opinions we can. Secondly, I am
going to support the denying resolution. I am afraid I have to agree with the
petitioner that the business would not succeed without his liquor license and I
hate to support anything that is doomed to fail in an area that needs
resurgence. We have done a lot of improvements along Plymouth Road. A
lot of the residents and businesses have worked hard to make a come back
there. I don't want to see something come in and go down in a mall that the
owner is trying to improve and that the neighbors obviously take a great
interest into it. They know the owner of the food store by name. They talk
about each one of the activities within the mall. It is a well used mall. It is
something that hopefully will be there for a long time and that the City can be
proud of. Therefore, I am going to have to go with a denying resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi: This facility is going in. I think to deny him food is the kiss of death. The
liquor license would be totally out of order. I am going go have to vote
against this motion. It wouldn't have a chance to survive without serving
17793
some hamburgers or hot dogs in such a facility and he is going in with it or
without it. Why set him up to fail?
Mr. LaPine: I have really mixed feelings about this. I am supporting the denying motion
because I just don't believe a billiard parlor should be there. I probably would
feel differently if the billiard parlor was at the west end of the shopping center
farther away from the library, farther away from the swimming pool than it is
now. If somehow it was in where the drug store is now and the drug store
was down at the other end instead of away from the area where all the kids
were going, I may feel differently about it. But at this point, I feel sorry for
the gentleman. I think he was ill advised and should have hired an attorney to
look into the ordinance of the City before he signed a long term lease. It is
ashamed he may go under because he didn't take the time to do that. I have to
agree with Mr. Piercecchi's point of view, I don't think he can make it without
the food. Maybe he can make it without the liquor license with the food but I
still don't believe this is a right spot for a billiard parlor.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Shane, McCann
NAYS: Piercecchi, Koons
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition fails. You have ten days in which to appeal this decision, in
writing, to the City Council.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-04-02-18 Bogarts Billiard Cafe
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
02-18 by Bogarts Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C License in connection with a billiard parlor proposed to be located
within Shelden Center on the South side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have one letter from the Inspection Department, dated May 23, 2000,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 3, 2000, the above
slei referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objection to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
17794
Mr. McCann: I ran the restaurant and liquor license as a combined Public Hearing. Is there
any last statement before we have a motion on the liquor license, sir?
Mr.Wathen: No. I would like to set something up for the food service but alcohol is what
it is.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-114-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-04-02-18 by Bogarts
Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C License in
connection with a billiard parlor proposed to be located within Shelden Center
on the South side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Woodring
Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-04-02-18 be denied for the
following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; particularly with respect to adjacent public
uses including the Noble Library, Shelden Park and Shelden Pool.
3. That this area of the City is currently well served with Class C licensed
establishments; and
4. That the proposed use is contrary to the purposes, goals and objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to insure compatibility and
appropriateness of uses so as to create and promote a more favorable
environment for neighborhood use and enjoyment.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Koons: This really isn't our job but I would hope that Mr. Hamburger and Mr. Wathen
could talk and maybe see some potential outs in the lease if they need to. I feel
this is a very unfortunate situation. I think Mr. and Mrs. Wathen appear to be
very nice people and I would hate to see them lose their business that they
�..- have already established, even though it is at different locations. I would like
for them to be able to have the ability to look for a location that is more suited.
17795
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition has failed. You have ten days in which to appeal this decision, in
writing, to the City Council
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-05-02-19 Jeffery A. Scott Architects (Wendy's)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
02-19 by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's International
requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant with drive-
up window facilities on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We received four departmental letters. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire
&Rescue Division, dated May 9, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct
a full service drive-thru restaurant 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 Division of
`ft. Police, dated May 10, 2000, which reads as follows: "In response to the
captioned petition, the Police Department has reviewed the listed site plan as
submitted The site plan reflects 57 parking spaces, two of which are
handicap. The requirements call for three handicap spaces for over 50
parking spaces. Also, the site plan does not show handicap signs as required
by City Ordinance. In regards to the landscaping as indicated on the site plan,
the Hicks Yew that will be planted along Middlebelt Road is shown as a
spreading plant. We have no objections to the landscaping upon verification
that the plants will not grow in height to interfere with a driver's line of sight."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third
letter is from the Engineering Division, dated May 15, 2000, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time.
The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: 'That
part of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia,
Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described as beginning due
South, 352.00 feet and South 89°56'00" West, 60.00 feet from the Northeast
corner of Section 26 and proceeding thence due South, 276.00 feet; thence
South 570'99" West, 28.00 feet; thence due North, 16.00 feet; thence
North 35'00'00" West, 18.00 feet; thence North 83°31'49" West, 127.52
feet; thence due North, 246.00 feet; thence due East, 160.60 feet to the point
of beginning.' It should be noted that increased traffic from the proposed
'gar' restaurant may present a traffic flow problem when mixed in with the existing
traffic from the oil change facility adjacent to the property. We trust that this
17796
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated May 22, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
,`" request of May 4, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: (1)As depicted, this petition is deficient one accessible
parking space (8 foot space with adjacent 5 foot aisle). (2) The turning
radius of the drive thru, as required by Ord, 543, is not indicated (3)
Required parking lot lighting is not specified as to location, height and type
and must be clarified (4) Surface of parking lot and drainage has not been
specified (5) The areas between trees are not specified as to material or
type. (6) Landscaping of this site from the previous project has not been
completed. (7) As proposed this petition will need variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive freestanding signs and amount and
type of signage including identification of tenants. (8) The balance of the
signage has not been reviewed due to a lack of detail. I trust this provides the
requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Timothy Stoepker, 300 River Place, Suite 3000, Detroit, MI. I'm appearing on behalf of
Wendy's International and also with me is a representative of Wendy's
International, Mr. Jeffery Scott, 7115 Orchard Lake Road#340, West
Bloomfield, MI., who is the architect for the project. As you are aware this
site was recently presented to you for special land use waiver at a hearing that
''` was conducted February of this year. Listening to the comments of the
Planning Commission that were made at that hearing as well as a review of the
resolution, resulted in significant site plan changes to the site. Mr. Scott will
be able to address those but before I go into the specific site that is before you,
I think it is important to review the nature of the zoning, the surrounding land
uses and the development in the area. What we are seeking here and what
falls within your jurisdiction is a special land use waiver for a drive-through
restaurant at this location. The site is presently zoned C-2 as is the adjacent
retail zoning. On the east of this site is the former Ladbroke site. That site is
being currently developed and is developed in part with a Costco store, a large
box store, immediately behind that is a large Home Depot store, immediately
south yet east of the site, is a Meijer store which is in the process of being
developed. South of this site is largely developed as industrial properties.
West of the site, which you are familiar with, is industrial development.
Immediately to the north, as indicated by Mr. Taormina, is an oil change store.
We then have the freeway, Schoolcraft Road, I-96 and immediately north of
that we have some restaurants, retail uses including a Bob Evans, a light retail
store, a hotel. Immediately across the street again, going to the east and a little
bit to the north, would be a standard restaurant. So there is a combination of
large box retail which are currently developed. Some that are developing
which will open as well as a mixture of restaurants and small retail uses within
the area which are consistent with the C-2 zoning patterns and classifications
that are there. There is no residential adjacent to or near the proposed site.
The nearest residential that I could see is north of the retail development that is
17797
on the north side of I-96, both west and east of Middlebelt Road. From what
we can tell, this site is not adjacent to and will not an impact to or have a
`kw relationship to the residential area to the north but it would be completely
related to the C-2 area which it will be in and also service the industrial areas
in the traffic that passes Middlebelt in that area. Referring back to your
concerns that were registered during the March meeting of this year regarding
the prior site plan, a new layout, a new site concept was developed for the
location. If you recall, and to help you out,you can see in this location, there
is currently a curb cut that goes into this site where this curb cut was shown.
The intent of the prior drawing was to take advantage of that curb cut at that
location and not move it because that was a historical curb cut into the site.
Based upon the comments of the Commission, a reference to that curb cut and
its proximity to Schoolcraft Road and I-96, the plan was totally revised and a
curb cut here was eliminated, will be closed off. A curb cut will be located on
the south end of the specific Wendy's proposed location. As a consequence,
there has been a reversal in the overall layout and development of the site. As
you will recall, the drive-through before, the stacking area was in the front side
of the restaurant. You came around and you came through the window here. I
think the concern that the Commission had in looking at the minutes of the
meeting and the resolution, was potential conflicts internally within this site as
it related to the external movements coming in and to this site. If you look at
what is being proposed to you now, those conflicts have been removed. If you
look at the number of automobiles here, there are ten within the stacking lane
at this location. Assuming that each of the spaces is approximately ten feet in
width, we have about 150 feet from the 10th car if there are 10 cars stacked, to
the ingress and egress point coming in off the proposed drive. The concern in
reference to the oil dispatch that was raised before has been addressed because
now the curb cut at this location has been removed and this is essentially a
stand alone as it relates to this site. It will still continue to have access to the
Wal-Mart, F &M development which is immediately to the west of the
location. So you have your drive-through window here, your stacking lane
here and parking in the general location here. As Mr. Taormina stated to you,
we have reviewed the specific comments that were issued by the various
departments. I think of importance to note is that there were no negative
comments in reference to the traffic circulation, to and from the site, in the site
itself or in relation to this use in the F & M, Wal-Mart store that is located on
this site itself. Neither within the Engineering reports, the Police Department
report and the traffic analysis that you received, there have been no negative
comments. The comment raised by the Police Department had to do with the
issue of handicap parking. We show two. If the ordinance requires three, we
will comply and require three. We have more than the minimum number of
spaces under the ordinance for parking associated with that. We can comply
and provide the additional handicap location. In reference to the landscaped
areas, this is the landscape plan. It shows the trees, the green areas in between,
there was a question raised on that. What will that be? I think the ordinance
recommendation on that is sod. It will be sodded. We can comply with that
issue. In reference to signage, we will have a wall mounted sign that complies
with your ordinance requirements. In reference to the issue of the type of
surfacing for the parking lot area, it will be asphalt, installed and constructed in
17798
compliance with the ordinance. In reference to the issue of the signage, there
is an F&M sign here and I guess the comment that was raised when I spoke
`.. with Mr. Taormina regarding this, is what is the status of the F & M sign. That
is a sign that we don't control. That is a sign that we can address with the
landlord. That is not within our control but from our signage standpoint we
will comply with your sign ordinance. In reference to the issue raised
regarding landscaping of the balance of the site, it is my understanding there
was a requirement imposed upon the developer of this center to comply with
requirements for landscaping and apparently that has not been completed.
Again, though that is not within our control, that is an issue that was raised.
Although not a part of our site plan, we will certainly address that with the
owner that, in fact, there was a concern that was raised by staff] that the
landscaping requirements imposed for the existing development on this site
have not been completed. That needs to be addressed and we will address that
with the current landowner. The last two issues that were raised, one was
lighting. Lighting will comply with the ordinance requirements. There will be
separate lighting for here. Again there is no exits between this area and the
residential community so the criteria within your ordinance regarding specific
lighting in residential areas doesn't apply. Notwithstanding that, lighting will
be appropriate for the site and comply with the intent of the C-2 district that is
there as well as the industrial districts that are adjacent. The last point that was
raised was the turning radii within here and Mr. Scott can address that but the
bottom line is we can comply with the turning radii. That discussion has
occurred between Mr. Scott and the Planning Department and those
corrections can be made to the plan. I guess the short and simple of it is, from
a detail standpoint the plan can comply and does comply with the requirements
of your site planning issues relating to the ordinance. Looking at Section
11.033 A through 1, a specific ordinance criteria relating to drive-through
restaurants, that are located within the C-2 zoning district, the only district
which they are allowed to. From a parking standpoint there is compliance.
From an ingress and egress standpoint, there is compliance. From a drive-
through width standpoint, that means this drive here is 12 feet, in compliance.
From a radii standpoint, compliance. Lighting can comply. There is no
church or school located within any proximity of this site so your
consideration as to that
Mr. McCann: Sir, you are reading the ordinance to us. We've dealt with the ordinance a
hundred times. Our staff has reviewed this item and they outline every time
we have a deficiency. I don't want to spend a hour going through this.
Mr. Stoepker: I don't either. I just want to briefly say, in reference to the specific criteria
relating to this under 11.033 A we comply.
Mr. McCann: Anything further?
Mr. Stoepker: Yes. You also have to consider this in reference to Sectionl 9.06 of the general
waiver uses. There are a number of characteristics that are there. Does this
ti.. use fall within consistent uses with the surrounding community itself. Would
the existence of this use be detrimental to future development? Would this use
17799
be a use that would impair values within the surrounding area. The answer to
that is no. That is reflected in the fact that historically and even into the future,
the City has promoted C-2 development within this area with a mixture of
sizes and shapes, from the small retail, small restaurant type use to the large
box use within that area. It is obvious from that and from the master plan that
if this area is to continue to be developed within a C-2 fashion, both on the east
and west side of Middlebelt Road at this location. From a traffic standpoint as
it relates to pedestrians, there again, since there is no residential area within
here, there is no impact that we can see in reference to the movement
pedestrians in relationship to this site. However, the site has been designed
both internally and externally to comply with your requirements for
development of this site as it is specified under Section 11.00 of your
ordinance and again, no negative comments were received from the Police
Department or from any Department regarding pedestrian circulation. I guess
that gets us back to what appears to be the last issue, or the only issue,that I
can tell that was of significant concern to the Commission and that had to do
with traffic circulation to the site and in the site itself. We believe that with the
significant change, the elimination of the curb cut here, limiting the curb cut to
this location, the complete layout and reversal of this store which allows for
stacking, internal drive-thru lanes to bypass the stacking lane itself or the
drive-thru lane that the concerns regarding traffic circulation itself or the drive-
thru lane, that the concerns regarding traffic circulation within the site and to
this site, have been addressed. The final point is, impact of traffic to and from
this site. We have given you significant data on that shows that Middlebelt on
this location has more than sufficient capacity to absorb the any added traffic
that might be generated to this site. As you know, fast food restaurants, drive-
thru restaurants, typically locate in areas where there already is traffic because
that is their customer base. They typically are not a destination point in
bringing new traffic to the area. Based upon the City's approval of both the
Home Depot, the Costco and now the Meijer's that are going in that location, it
verifies the fact that there is sufficient road capacity for even such large users
of traffic volumes as those particular uses. In comparison based on the data we
have given you, this is a light traffic user. The final analysis is that from a
traffic safety standpoint the Wendy's store at this location does not negatively
impact traffic safety and does not bring any of the levels of traffic or the use of
traffic down. They all remain at levels that are acceptable under every
measurable or objectionable standard.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Stoker, could you use your fmger and drive from Middlebelt into your
restaurant through the drive-thru?
Mr. Stoepker: This is Middlebelt. This is the ingress. This is the beginning of the drive-thru
lane right here. Here is the window.
Mrs. Koons: Keep going. Go out.
Mr. Stoepker Here.
Mrs. Koons: Go back to Middlebelt.
17800
Mr. Stoepker: Here.
Mrs. Koons: The parking along Middlebelt, by the landscaping, is that your parking?
Mr. Stoepker: That would be our parking.
Mrs. Koons: Where is your walk-in door?
Mr. Stoepker: This location here.
Mrs. Koons: So people are walking through the path of the drive-thru when they park there?
Mr. Stoepker: They are walking through, not the stacking lane itself, they are walking
through a parking lot and I gather every time I walk out into that Costco store
across the street I would also walk across a drive lane to get there. The pattern
is no different from that standpoint. There is stacking here for ten cars.
Mrs. Koons: I am not worried about the stacking. I am worried about the getting to the
stacking. The division of your property from the Wal-Mart parking lot, is it
divided by landscaping only?
Mr. Stoepker: At this location, yes. This is not a separate outlot. This is a leased parcel.
Mrs. Koons: Divided by landscaping only?
Mr. Stoepker: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: When you gave us the traffic study that was on the exterior of the roads, do
you have any idea how many cars go into that facility where you want to go,
for a day.
Mr. Stoepker: I think we did give you the data on that. I don't recall that off the top of my
head.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't recall that. I know we did have the exterior but I don't recall the interior
of how many cars go into Wal-Mart and the discount chain all day long.
Mr. Stoepker: The study did incorporate the existing traffic patterns there and did anticipate
future development within the area including the Wal-Mart, including the F&
M and including the
Mr. Alanskas: Do you recall what that number was, the number of vehicles?
Mr. Stoepker: No, I don't recall that. What I do recall and what we do have is that the traffic
�... levels were all deemed to be at levels that are still above unacceptable levels in
that area.
17801
Mr. Alanskas: That was levels going on the exterior. I am talking about inside the parking
lot. Question number two, is Wendy's in any other facility with Wal-Mart
where you park in the middle of the parking lot?
Daniel Shornak, I am the director of real estate for Wendy's International. Our address is
29777 Telegraph Road, Suite 1130, Southfield, Michigan.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there other facilities that have the Wendy's in with the Wal-Mart?
Mr. Shornak: Yes there.
Mr. Alanskas: Are they the same size parking or are they different size lots?
Mr. Shornak: Quite honestly, for the most part, they are one acre lots. In some of the rural
areas, because Wal-Mart originally was a heavy rural developer. For example,
in Bad Ax, it is a little under,just about three quarters of an acre but then their
ordinance requirements in those communities are different than Livonia's and
that honestly has an affect on the size of the lot because the stacking lanes,
because of traffic circulation, parking and landscaping requirements, the lot
needs to expand. Urban communities, such as Livonia, to make them more
aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you go through the exiting again from the line? Elaine brought up
some real good points and I think there is another area that we need to look at.
Mr. Stoepker: These spaces would be removed that are there now.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you come perpendicular to Middlebelt Road, right?
Mr. Stoepker: You would come straight out of here.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is parking that is perpendicular to Middlebelt Road, is there not?
Mr. Stoepker: There is parking at this location that is perpendicular to Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Piercecchi: And these cars could back up into that traffic pattern, could they not?
Mr. Stoepker: That is possible. They could back up into the traffic pattern at this location
and the other locations there and also I guess at the other locations in any other
center. Somebody is going to be backing out and into a drive. This is a
private drive at this location. There is another primary drive for Wal-Mart that
is further down on the site.
Mr. Piercecchi: I know but I was looking at that. Elaine brought up the one about the one on
�.. the bottom and I agree with here. That is a potential problem too for people
walking. Coming perpendicular to Middlebelt you've got about 15 to 20
17802
parking spots there where anyone of them could back up into that traffic
pattern.
Mr. Stoepker: There are ten spots. Where there could be the backing up at this location
here...
Mr. Piercecchi: Do we need those spots?
Mr. Stoepker: I don't know if we do but I don't know if Wal-Mart does or not. I do not know.
Mr. Shornak: As far as Wal-Mart and those parking spots that you highlighted, I would say
that we could discuss with the landlord and with Wal-Mart the potential for
closing down some of those parking spaces as long, again, as they kept in
compliance with ordinance requirements as it regards their box. Certainly,
from an operational standpoint, it has to be safe for our customers or we are
not going to do business there. It has to be safe for our customers who are
walking across the driveway. It has to be safe for our customers who are
leaving the site to go back to usually in this case, their place of work in the
area. I would state, and I don't mean to go back to something, but I would
state that if you look at any fast food restaurant in the City of Livonia,
whether it is us or any of the other fast food restaurants, that driveway that
you talked about, is the same driveway that is in every fast food restaurant
with parking spaces on both sides. Yes, when people park their cars they do
walk across that to physically go into the building and sit down and eat but
that situation occurs in every restaurant. Via the fact that as our attorney
pointed out to you, we are just a ways away from even the ten car stacking.
That internal traffic safety impact is minimal and negligible and I can tell
you from an operating experience basis has never posed a safety hazard to
our customers.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, would you comment on that?
Mr. Taormina: On which part?
Mr. Piercecchi: The exit lane coming out of there.
Mr. Taormina: I don't know if it is unique to this parcel. I would agree that there are
certainly many examples where isles providing main traffic within a private
development have parking immediately adjacent to it. In terms of the
stacking dimensions, this does comply with the ordinance standards with the
number of vehicles that they are providing. I think their traffic report did
address that issue in terms of what the expected use of the drive-up window
would be. They estimate that for the most part, five to nine vehicles are what
will be using this facility and their stacking provides for at least ten, possibly
eleven spaces.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am not talking about meeting the parking requirements, I am talking about
`.. is that a good situation that we will have there?
17803
Mr. Taormina: Yes. I don't think it is unique to this site necessarily and as far as removing
those parking spaces, there is presently a deficiency in parking for the Wal-
Mart/F& M development. To remove any additional spaces would require
approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Stoepker: If I could point out in reference to that, and the reason why we put this up
here is, this is the current ingress and egress right now and there are spaces
that back out into that area.
Mr. Piercecchi: That's true but the cars that are going to park at Wal-Mart are going to park
there for probably two or three hours. The cars that are going to park at your
place,those spaces are going to get more use than anything that will be going
into the Wal-Mart.
Mr. Stoepker: These spaces aren't associated with ours. These are the Wal-Mart spaces at
this location. We have sufficient parking within our footprint area for us.
Mr. Piercecchi: People are going to park there. It is an obvious place to park. It is perfect
place to park. You come in. You see a spot there, you pull in and park there.
I would be more comfortable, frankly, if all those type of areas could be
eliminated, especially in drive-ins. When I go to Wal-Mart, I park and I stay
there two or three hours. People are going to stay 15 to 20, 30 minutes in
those spots.
Mr. Stoepker: Your concern was not the Wal-Mart patron parking here. It was the Wendy
patron parking, backing up and then coming out.
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes sir.
Mr. Shane: On a good day, how many cars would you expect would be lining up to go
through the drive-thru?
Mr. Stoepker: I think we indicated that in the report and Mr. Taormina confirmed that, the
stacking through here, we would expect five to ten cars.
Mr. Shane: On a real good day?
Mr. Stoepker: At any given time within this lane itself. That is why this lane is designed
this way. Your ordinance anticipates that and that is why it requires from a
site standpoint a stacking capability of no less than ten.
Mr. Shane: If I am in line, half way through the line and I change my mind, how do I get
out of there.
Mr. Stoepker: You haven't ordered yet?
Mr. Shane: I haven't ordered yet.
r..
17804
Mr. Stoepker: Until you are encaptured across the back there and that is close to where the
menu board is, you still have the ability to pull through that lane. The
`. parking that is behind the stacking lanes, if you are already in the stacking
lanes you've already ordered, sir.
Mr. Shane: So where is your order board?
Mr. Stoepker: It is right here. If for some reason you have changed your mind at that point
as indicated to you, there is an additional lane beside the stacking lane that
you could drive through to exit the site without having to go through the
drive-thru windows.
Mr. Shane: The way it is drawn, it doesn't look that way.
Mr. Stoepker: This area right here. You are talking about the ability to get out of this line?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Stoepker: At this location you are stuck.
Mr. Shane: I would think you would want to provide some way for someone to, at least
before they turn the corner, to exit.
Mr. Stoepker: Go straight up in here?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Stoepker: We have the capability to remove some of the landscaping at that point
which would allow for an escape point.
Mr. Shornak: Logistically it could be done but I think the reason we didn't do it at this
location was to try to comply with the landscape requirements. Some
communities do want you to have an escape and some don't. Some want it
fully segregated so you don't have the ability to pull out into this. It just
varies from one community to another. Some have a preference for that as
you are saying, Mr. Shane.
Mr. Shane: I would like to revisit the F &M pylon sign. You have a leased piece of
property here, don't you?
Mr. Stoepker: Yes.
Mr. Shane: If I am going down Middlebelt Road or if I am going to F & M or into
Wendy's or anywhere else, I don't see any property lines. I see that sign as
part of the Wendy's development, as part of that Wal-Mart store and it does
not comply with our present ordinances. I would like to see that sign
removed. I am not going to vote for this program unless I have some
N.• assurance that it will be removed. Secondly, I have the same comment on
the landscaping that is along Middlebelt Road. I would like to see that
17805
landscaping continue south in front of the F &M store property so that it all
looks like one site. I don't know if it will take a tabling resolution to discuss
that or what but that certainly is my goal. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Taormina, are we closing one curb cut? Are we opening another one?
Are we using the existing one?
Mr. Taormina: You are moving the curb cut about 235 feet to the south on this site.
Mrs. Koons: So we are not losing a curb cut.
Mr. Taormina: There are two points of ingress and egress into the Wal-Mart development.
The northern entrance would be shifted 230 feet to the south. The southern
entrance would remain there where it is.
Mrs. Koons: I misunderstood. I thought we were just going to use the one main entrance.
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to a restaurant going in at this location but I do have an
objection to a restaurant with a drive-thru. How much of your business is
actually drive-thru business?
Mr. Stoepker: 65%to 70%.
Mr. LaPine: That is the point where I have a real disagreement with this location. I was
out there Saturday, the amount of traffic that comes off the I-96 expressway
from the east getting off at Middlebelt, makes a left hand turn to go south, is
unbelievable. You have to go out there to see it. I was out there this
morning, again, ten minutes to ten, the amount of semis coming off the
expressways, making a left hand turn to go south on Middlebelt,three
abreast across the bridge, maybe five cars. Any car that wants to get over to
get into Wendy's, is going to have a hard time. The point here is that the
Meijer's is not open yet. The big warehouse that has 132 doors, which could
mean 132 semis could be coming and going through there. They are all not
going to come off of Middlebelt, some of them are going to come off of
Schoolcraft. We are going to have a tremendous amount of traffic at this
location. People coming and going, driving in and out, are going to cause
more additional hazard onto Middlebelt Road because people coming out of
there are going to try to make a left hand turn, it is going to be almost an
impossibility with the amount of traffic coming from the expressway and
turning south onto Middlebelt Road. The traffic is unbelievable. You gave
us a traffic study, when we heard the case originally. I questioned the traffic
study. You've got stuff in here telling us about the number of cars that come
and go and I mentioned that some of the data in here is back from 1996 and
1998. That is two and four years ago. A lot has changed there now. The
amount of traffic going into Costco and the traffic going into Home Depot is
tremendous. When the Meijer opens plus when all the warehousing opens
r., there, that corner is going to be unbelievable. I think we are going to cause
an awful traffic hazard here having a drive-thru restaurant at that corner. If it
17806
was a restaurant where people were going to go in and eat and be there for an
hour or so and leave but not cars coming and going. I think we opening
ourselves up for a tremendous problem at this location. I for one can't see
`.w
that happening.
Mr. Stoepker: I think what the data shows you and if you look at any typical fast food
restaurant, the fast food restaurant, unlike Meijer's or your Home Depot, or
your Costco which is a destination place draws traffic to the area, a typical
fast food restaurant does not draw new traffic to the area. The reason why
Wendy's wants to locate here is because there is already traffic there. Based
upon that that is why you see the traffic volumes and you also see the levels
of service in and out, to and from the site. Those levels don't change.
Taking into consideration even the left hand turn and if any thing, there is an
improvement over what is there now because with the Wendy store going in
at this location, you take the curb cut which is the Wal-Mart cut furthest to
the north and now that is eliminated. That cut is there right now. From a
safety standpoint that was the concern that this Commission had. If the City
in it's wisdom felt that this was such I don't think it would have approved the
Meijer's at that site which brings an unbelievable amount of traffic to that
location. It would not have approved the Home Depot or the Costco and
certainly the light industrial development that is occurring due east where the
main ingress and egress is off of Middlebelt Road on the opposite site of
that. That is the main point. As you go further up Schoolcraft, which is only
one way, you can enter that light industrial from that location. All I can tell
you is that your Police Department looked at this. Their comments back in
reference to this site were that we were deficient one handicap space and
they wanted to make sure that our landscaping did not impair sightlines at
this location. You don't have to accept our word for it. If you look at your
own staff reports, that is the answer.
Mr. LaPine: I don't have the data with me but it was just in the paper a couple of weeks
ago, I think Schoolcraft and Middlebelt was either the third highest accident
prone intersection in the City of Livonia. More accidents happen there.
There are only two other locations in Livonia.
Mr. Stoepker: We did address that in our proposal saying what could potentially be done.
Mr. LaPine: You are telling me that with Meijer's not being open and the warehouse not
open, that that is not going to cause a problem. I am telling you that it is. I
don't care how much traffic there is, people see Wendy's and they will want
to go in there and grab some food and run over to the center or people
working at the warehouse and they want to run over at lunch time and drive-
thru and run back to work, it is going to cause additional problems on
Middlebelt no matter what you say. Common sense will tell you when
you've got that much capacity back there for warehousing, it is going to
cause a lot of problems.
17807
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Stoker, I just want to ask you a question that you made a remark that you
are saying that most of your studies show that you will not get traffic from
people coming in but from people existing in the parking lot already?
Mr. Stoepker: No. My comment was that a typical fast food restaurant's business is located
in areas like this based upon the traffic that is there.
Mr. Shornak: What we are trying to tell you is that as much as like to flatter ourselves and
egos I don't believe we are going to add any more traffic to Middlebelt Road
and to the intersection of I-96, Schoolcraft and Middlebelt Road than already
will go through there or currently exists. What we will do is we will help to
facilitate the fact that, as our attorney pointed out to you, you've approved a
Meijer's, a Costco, a Home Depot, and an extremely large new industrial
park. These are all corporate citizens of Livonia that are going to be working
there that are going to want to eat.
Mr. Alanskas: But you are talking about 100 acre site and where you want to go is no where
near a 100 acres.
Mr. Shornak: But I am saying that we are not going to create any additional traffic than
currently exists.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you, yourself, spent an hour or two inside that parking lot to see what
goes on with the cars in there.
Mr. Stoepker: Actually we have. We even have photographs.
Mr. Alanskas: What time? During the day, evening?
Mr. Stoepker: Throughout various times of the day and looking at parking patterns within
the parking lot. There was a previous use at this location that was removed
and torn down. So historically this was used as another use, I think it was a
dry cleaners.
Mr. Shornak: Martinizing.
Mr. Stoepker: It was a dry cleaners at that location and a gas station prior to that.
Historically there was a use there. I guess with all due respect to my client,
nobody drives out of their way to go to a typical fast food restaurant. You go
to it because it is on your way. That is the point I am trying to make.
Mr. Alanskas: I am going to close my comments. I think that the plan that you now show
us is a big improvement of what you had before. I still think it will be a
disaster for traffic. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition.
I don't see anyone. One thing we haven't looked at is the elevations. Does
`w anyone want to look at the elevations before we move on? You don't have a
colored rendering of the building elevation with you this evening?
17808
Mr. Scott: Wendy's has a standard architectural scheme which is an all brick building,
enclosed gated dumpsters, again brick to comply with the compatibility of
N"`" the building itself. I think from an architectural standpoint I believe that our
facility has a great deal of integrity to it.
Mr. McCann: Any neon?
Mr. Shornak: No.
Mr. McCann: No down lighting?
Mr. Shornak: Outside of the safety lighting for the safety of the customers going in and out
and of course our employees and of course the internal lighting necessary for
traffic safety. No.
Mr. Scott: There are some decorative wall signs which highlight the brick and the brick
accents along the side of the building.
Mr. Shornak: But they are also security lighting.
Mr. Scott: They are not your typical HID wall package.
Mr. McCann: You've got lighting fixtures, parking fixture lights indicated on there it
appears.
`..
Mr. Scott: On the building?
Mr. McCann: No, it looks like they are set out in front. It is hard to tell.
Mr. Scott: We do have one in the back towards the dumpster.
Mr. McCann: What elevation is that? How high is that?
Mr. Scott: It looks like the bottom of the fixture is 15'4". It is just mounted above the
facade at that point. There would be also additional pole amounted lights.
Mr. McCann: That wasn't indicated on your plans?
Mr. Scott: That one we did not provide the photo metrics or the exact locations. We are
very confident we can meet with staff and comply with the requirements.
Mr. Piercecchi: On your plans you state 4 inch brick veneer. What do you mean by brick
veneer?
Mr. Scott: It is a 4 inch face brick. It is your standard brick.
r.. Mr. Piercecchi: You don't have your quarter inch glued on a polystyrene?
17809
Mr. Scott: No. It is not a thin brick.
Mr. LaPine: You stated that 65% of your business is drive through. From the time a car
drives up, gives his order, goes up to the window and picks up his order, how
long does that take, approximately?
Mr. Shornak: 157 seconds.
Mr. LaPine: Approximately 157 seconds, 65% of the time, we are going to have a car
leaving there going out on Middlebelt Road. Is that correct?
Mr. Shornak: 65% is a customer count. Let's say that Wendy's has 2,000 customers a day.
Out of those 2,000 customers, 1,300 of them will use the drive-thru facility.
They will use that from 10 o'clock in the morning until midnight. Certainly
there are some peak hours, lunch hours and dinner hours, and then there is a
late night peak usually on weekends. Again, it is typical that 65% of our
customers use the drive-thru.
Mr. LaPine: The point I am trying to make, I am not opposed to a restaurant going in
there. If you were a full service restaurant on that corner where people go in
there and have lunch or dinner and there are there for an hour or an hour and
15 minutes, and then they leave,then I've got less traffic coming out on
Middlebelt, time after time after time. In my opinion, it just loads up
Middlebelt with all the traffic coming from the expressway going south.
That is my objection.
Mr. Shornak: One good thing Commissioner LaPine, at least our customer aren't drinking
alcoholic beverages for an hour or an hour and a half and then going back
out into Middlebelt Road. Nobody has a buz7 off of a frosty.
Mr. McCann: One of the things we did have concerns with was that hasn't been addressed
is the pylon sign and the greenbelt that is running south of this project. I
know they say they are not responsible for that. But isn't this part of one
large site plan. Aren't we really amending a larger site plan in this sense, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: It is being reviewed as a separate site plan but in effect, yes, this is a review
of the site that includes the Wal-Mart and the F & M.
Mr. McCann: This is one site, correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Item 16 says that the pylon sign shall be removed.
Mr. McCann: That is what the resolution says. I want to know what the owner says. Or
what contracts he has with F &M with regards to that signage.
Mr. Shornak: When is the next Planning Commission meeting?
17810
Mr. McCann: July 11 would be the next regular meeting.
Mr. Stoepker: I was not aware that there were requirements regarding that but in discussing
that we certainly will address this with the owner. We will tell the owner
that based upon what I am hearing that there are two potential conditions for
approval on here, the removal of the F & M sign and second, completion of
the landscape. That is what I am hearing. So I guess the information we
bring back to this owner is for this use to come to this site, you need to be in
compliance with the current zoning requirements as it relates to this signage
and to your landscape requirements on the perimeter of the property on
Middlebelt.
Mr. McCann: I think you were very patient and sat through a large public hearing with
regard to one of our other centers. One of the things that was common with
all of the statements made that is we need to look at these sites as a whole.
The residents are concerned about everything that goes in there. Wal-Mart
has put a large investment in there in re-doing it. There is a large investment
going in across the street. I think we are moving on the right track. That is
my concern. I will open it up for a motion. Do we have a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-19 by Jeffery
''`w A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's International requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities
on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
Road and Industrial Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
05-02-19 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by Jeffery A. Scott
Architects P.C. with a revision date of April 6, 2000, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the landscape plan marked Sheet SP-2 prepared by Jeffery A. Scott
Architects P.C., with a revision date of April 6, 2000, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That the landscape treatment in the landscape areas adjacent to Middlebelt
Road as shown on the landscape plan shall be continued along the balance
of the Middlebelt Road right-of-way of the parcel of which the proposed
site is a part;
4. That the landscaping shown on the above referenced landscape plan and
also the landscaping referenced in condition(3) shall be installed to the
.., satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
17811
5. That the exterior elevation plan marked Sheet A-5 prepared by Jeffery A.
o.. Scott Architects P.C., with a revision date of April 6, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 86;
7. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face, 4-
inch brick, no exceptions;
8. That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the
trash enclosure detail shown on the site plan;
9. That three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as required;
10. That the turning radius of the drive-thru shall be at least 15 feet as
required;
11. That site lighting equipment shall be shielded and shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height;
12. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
13. That all mechanical rooftop equipment shall be screened from view;
itow 14. That one (1)wall sign, 32 square feet in area, is approved on the east
elevation as shown on the building elevation drawings;
15. That the proposed ground sign shown on the site plan is approved, except
that the setback from the right-of-way line shall be at least ten(10) feet as
required;
16. That the existing "F&M" pylon sign located on the parcel of which the
Wendy's site is a part shall be removed;
17. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
18. That all off-street parking spaces provided in connection with this
restaurant shall be double-striped;
19. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted
to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied
for.
For the following reasons:
4r.
17812
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 subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended
Mr. McCann: Is there a seconding motion? Hearing none, the motion fails for lack of
support. Is there an alternate motion?
Mr. Shane: I would like to make a tabling resolution and the purpose for that is to give the
petitioner time to meet with the property owner to see if we can't resolve the
issue of the extended landscaping and removal of the pylon sign before I am
willing to vote on this petition.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
#6-115-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
``" Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-19 by Jeffery
A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's International requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities
on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
Road and Industrial Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-05-02-19 be tabled to
the July 11, 2000 meeting.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Koons, Piercecchi, Shane, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will be tabled to the July 11 meeting. We kind of know what we need to get
done between now and then. You can get the light fixtures for the parking lot,
get all that taken care of and meet with the landlord. Thank you very much.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-05-02-20 Jason Coffman (Treats)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
02-20 by Jason Coffman on behalf of Treats requesting waiver use approval to
17813
operate a carryout/sit-down restaurant with seating within an existing building
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Norfolk Avenue and
Morlock Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have received four letters. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated May 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
carry out/sit-down restaurant with customer seating on property located at the
above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by James C. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the
Division of Police, dated May 18, 2000, which reads as follows: "In response
to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site
plan as submitted. We would recommend installation of handicap parking
signs for the current handicap spaces." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated May 19, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following approximate
legal description should be used in connection therewith: 'That part of the
northeast 1/4 of Section 2, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,
Michigan, more particularly described as beginning at a point distant North
1°42' West, 88 feet and South 88°23' West, 87 feet from the southeast corner
of Lot 1 of the Storm and Fowler's County Crest Subdivision, Liber 42, Page
74 of Wayne County Records and proceeding thence South 88°23' West, 60
feet; thence North 1°42' West, 30 feet; thence North 88°23'East, 60 feet;
thence South 1°42'East, 30 feet to the point of beginning.' We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John
P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated May 23, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of May 12, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted: (1) This site appears to have excessive window
signage of a permanent nature. This Department has no objection to this
petition. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jason Coffman, 41275 Michigan Ave., Canton, MI.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us a little bit about your proposal?
Mr. Coffman: We already have an ice cream store and during lunchtime we usually get
maybe 10 or 12 people. We just opened and we haven't had that many people
yet. The business hasn't picked up. The drawing I submitted, the drawing was
17814
inaccurate and I didn't have time to change that for you but we are going to
have three small round tables with four seats at them for a total of 12 seats. As
far as the window signs go, I wasn't aware of the limitations, the 10 sq. ft. I
did change that myself. It is in compliance. It took down the temporary
signage, the help wanted sign. The handicap parking, there is one sign but it is
really faded. You can't see where it says parking or the handicap marker. I
bought one of those today to put on there tomorrow. We are going to get one e
sign. Evidentially someone ripped one down. We do have another space. We
will have to get a new one. I couldn't get a hold of the landlord today to talk to
him but I plan on taking care of that tomorrow.
Mr. McCann: Very good. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees do you have in the facility?
Mr. Coffman: In the ice cream store or the other store?
Mr. Alanskas: With what you want to do now with the food.
Mr. Coffman: Five.
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been doing this, except for the food, the ice cream? How
long have you been there?
Mr. Coffman: Two months. We are relatively new.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: You own the baseball card store too?
Mr. Coffman: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: So you will knock down a wall there so it will be one big business?
Mr. Coffman: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: You are real close to Clarenceville High School. My concern is, how many
kids come in there? Is this a hang out for kids. Do they come in there at lunch
time? Do they hang out there after school or anything of that nature?
Mr. Coffman: We haven't had that problem yet. Obviously that could happen, but so far
nobody hangs out there. The kids do come in there at lunchtime in groups,
three to four people. They buy an ice cream or some nachos. They eat them in
there. They throw them in the trash can by the door and they go back to
school. School just got out so I don't know if that is going to be a problem. If
it is then we will do what is necessary to make sure that it is not.
Nos. Mr. LaPine: Can you assure us that you are going to police the outside and if it is a problem
as far as them throwing papers and things like that on the ground?
17815
Mr. Coffman: Yes. Even before the ice cream store was created, usually every morning and
later in the day, one of our employees does sweep out front and checks to
make sure that there isn't junk or papers laying around.
Mr. LaPine: You've got one bathroom in the restaurant section. How about in the baseball
card store, is there a bathroom in that area?
Mr. Coffman: Yes sir. It is in the rear part of the baseball card store.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further 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 will close the Public Hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-116-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on Petition 2000-05-02-20 by Jason Coffman on behalf
of Treats requesting waiver use approval to operate a carryout/sit-down
restaurant with seating within an existing building located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Norfolk Avenue and Morlock Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
`'"' Council that Petition 2000-05-02-20 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 12
seats;
2. That permanent window signage for this site shall not exceed the
maximum amount permitted per place of business of ten(10) square feet in
area and the total of all window signage, permanent and temporary, shall
not cover more than twenty (20) percent of the glass area; and
3. That handicapped parking signs in compliance with the current Michigan
Barrier Free requirements shall be installed for the existing handicapped
parking spaces.
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 10.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
... and
17816
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-05-02-21 Ivanhoe Companies
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
02-21 by Ivanhoe Companies requesting waiver use approval to construct a
Planned Residential Development on property located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in the
N.E. 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four letters. The first one is from the Inspection Department, dated
May 25, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 17,
2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) This petition has been reviewed as though the zoning is R-C. (2)
As proposed, this petition will need a variance form the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a deficient front yard setback. Proposed is 50 feet, required is 75
feet. (3) As proposed this petition will need a variance form the Z.B.A.for
deficient site area of 24,754 square feet. Required is 337,950 square feet,
provided is 313,196 square feet. Furthermore, as each town house's "Multi-
use"room may be converted to a bedroom, another 1,050 square feet of land
are would be required There is a potential shortage of another 34,650
square feet of area. This condition is recommended to be addressed now so
that each homeowner wanting to convert that space to a bedroom is saved a
trip of the Z.B.A. (4) As proposed this petition will need a variance from
the Z.B.A.for excessive stories on the town house. Proposed are three
stories,permitted is two. (5) Parking as noted should be sufficient.
However, required parking is 209 spaces not 173 spaces as indicated on the
plan. (6) There is not enough detail on provided plans to determine if the
exterior are "essentially maintenance free"/ Plans must be clarified (7) A
determination should be made if the "gathering area"meets the intent of a
recreation area. (8) Off street parking areas are not marked with the
required double striping. Other than as noted above, this Department has no
further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior
Building Inspector. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated
'�- May 30, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site
plan and have the following recommendation: We recommend installation of
17817
a stop sign at the sidewalk for exiting vehicles and a speed limit sign inside the
entrance to the complex. State law requires one handicap parking space for
,` the 21 off-street parking spaces. None of the condominiums is barrier free.
Should the need for a barrier free condominium occur, then handicap parking
will need to be addressed as required. The site plan does not address lighting.
We would recommend sufficient lighting for the street and for the "gathering
area". The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
third letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue, dated May 30, 2000, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to waiver use approval to construct a planned
residential development on property located at the above referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1)
Our approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being provided and located
with maximum spacing of 300 ft. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (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 fourth letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated June 8, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description contained
therein will need to be corrected to accurately describe the parcel. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gary Shapiro, Ivanhoe Huntley Companies, 7013 Orchard Lake Road, W. Bloomfield, MI
Mr. McCann: Tell us a little bit about your project.
Mr. Shapiro: We are pleased to be back before you again. We have had numerous work
sessions. Kevin Christiansen, my associate, is putting up the two boards so I
can outline the original site plan of where we started and where we are right
now. The Ivanhoe Huntley Companies are pleased to be back in Livonia. We
have built and developed over 800 units, including Deer Creek, Woodbury and
Caliburn. Those three are at the high end of developments in the area. We
own the Plymouth Woods Apartments and Arbor Woods Apartments. We are
pleased to be involved in this site. This site intrigued us because we viewed it
as a down zoning. Many developers before us had considered developing this
and presenting to you as 18 units per acre with the alley type products which is
being developed in the community. An office development was another
alternative. We've addressed the project with the intention of doing a high-end
luxury condominium project in the $260,000 to $300,000 range. The price has
gone up since we first began because we have worked in concert with you and
your planners to try to improve the plan. The property, under current zoning,
is for 72 units as opposed to the next higher multi-family which could be as
much as 18 units per acre. This is nine plus units per acre. We originally
thought about putting an ingress and egress off of Newburgh. We eliminated
17818
that and have one entry/access point off of Pembroke. The original plan had
10 unit buildings. At the request of staff and many comments made in
Nos. working with everybody, neighbors and so forth, no building now exceeds 7
units. We believe this turned out to be an exemplary plan because what we
now have is through units. All units look from front to the back yard. We are
able to put the detention basin in the center as an amenity. We are also able to
get less units, long buildings, on Newburgh Road and buffer it. Some of the
changes we made, we have increased, the ordinance on this border has a 25
foot setback, we have increased it to 35 feet. By having a perimeter road we
are able to do an interesting landscaping job of streetscape and sidewalks
which will give a real interesting feeling with no units looking at each other.
We have increased the road from a 22 ft. road to a 25 ft. road, giving on-street
parking. In each four corners, we have added visitor parking. In working with
variances, Livonia is unique to most communities, we originally wanted a six
foot variance on height. Now we are only requesting a four foot variance on
height. As I mentioned from the beginning, we are down six units from the
allowed 72 units in the district. There were a number of concerns about
whether the storm system could go through this area. We have now
established that the drain system can go through there. We are going to do an
elaborate buffering on those units looking at the side of that building. We
have worked very hard to do a quality development. I want to show you the
elevations and what happened there. This was the original elevation that we
developed which has now grown. Many comments were made about the front
entry garages. What we have changed from this elevation, we have added
substantially more brick. There is 65% brick on the entire development. The
'r.w end units, if they chose two out of the three available units, will be courtyard
units. In the interior townhouse units we have recessed them to have five foot
offsets. Not only do you have tandem garages, you have a nice inset area over
here. As each of these things transition from losing units, from increasing
landscaping to increasing architectural quality, the price goes up. Being a
developer is frustrating at times because I would rather be at the 120 units and
18 units per acre because I can reach a greater mean population. Now with
each of these additions adds substantially to the cost. Density is a key issue to
stay at this density level. The more you add, the more it cost and I want to be
able to sell these units and be successful as I have been in this community and
throughout metro Detroit. If you can recall from the last time, this is
substantially improved;much more brick. All garages are recessed.
Courtyards on the end, if they pick two out of the three and beautiful balconies
on these townhouses. These are designed through some requests to eliminate
some of the units to do four unit buildings to three unit buildings. We
contribute our success to listening to our architects and brain storming. These
units are designed where they should always be a minimum of two townhouses
in the middle for architectural integrity. Just like another developer may put a
townhouse on the end. I won't allow that because I have been advised by my
staff and my architects that that is poor architecture. In our requests we are
asking to get the site plan approved with not more than 66 units ensuring that
the townhouses will always be in the center as you see but request flexibility to
r..- let the Livonia residents choose the type of end units. Just like we are
providing a master bedroom on the first floor, and three bedrooms in these
17819
units. A homeowner here may only choose one bedroom upstairs or he can
choose two bedrooms upstairs. We want to give them that flexibility. The
project is designed for the cross section of your community which will be a
high percentage of active adults and empty nesters and the townhouses for
your professionals with all the new development going on in the area. I want
to bring on now the landscape boards and the details that you requested at the
last Planning Commission meeting. You also asked us to show you the rear
elevation. We have that for you too tonight. The rear elevation, as you can
see, is a substantial amount of brick. These roof lines are very expensive to
build. These roofs over the bay windows are very expensive to build. We are
concerned about our neighbors in all directions and we want a quality project.
This to also added to the price point that is going to be going up and this is the
conceptual elevation of the rear. This is something we worked very hard on
over the last week. We know the neighbors are concerned particularly to the
south. We had hoped everybody would engage us but we are certainly
sympathetic that nothing is there now and they want a substantial buffer. As I
said earlier, we increased the setback from what the zoning ordinance allows,
10 feet. We have substantially increased the landscaping over the last plan. It
is our goal to put a virtual contiguous series of trees on the entire perimeter of
that property line. We have shown that. We show substantial increased
landscaping along the parking, on all sides and this plan, the final plan, it is
interesting to me, not recalling Livonia, that you don't have a specific
ordinance, but we are willing to critique the landscape plan and make a point
of record and install the landscaping. We are sensitive to the south property
line and want to ensure the neighbors that there can be a continuous wall of
conifer trees which are either arborvitae, spruce or pine trees. Another request
of the Commission is what are we going to be doing in the retention basin?
We spent the last week working with our engineers. It will be much more
costly but we have developed a method to make the retention area a wet pond.
This area will have standing water most of the time. We show blue even
where we believe water will be in drought conditions. I think it was also a
request of the Planning Commission to say "show me what you have done".
The Ivanhoe Companies have done quite a bit. We are the top ten
developer/builders every year. We've won the MSPO award three times.
Landscaping is our forte'. These four ponds depict some of the things that you
can do. What is on the landscape plan actually has more landscaping around
the perimeter. So at the request of the Planning Commission we brought in the
feel of what amenity that can look like in the community. Further, because we
are going to be at a high price point, we brought along some of the different
features. Not that these are going to be the benches, in fact we've got some
more traditional benches we want to use that blend with the neighborhood. On
the corners we are going to have some brick pavers and benches, and it shows
benches on ponds. We've been doing a lot of these trellis details throughout
the community. We plan on doing it here. At your request we have shown
that. I don't know how well you can see the corners here, the details of the
sidewalks and streetlamps. When we develop a project, we give a complete
package. We've in Livonia, I plan in being in Metro Detroit for a long time.
We want to do a quality project and we want to ensure the neighbors that what
we say, we will do. We respectfully request your approval tonight to approve
17820
the plan subject to making it part of the motion so to speak that the landscape
plan is implemented and that the promises that we are making before you
tonight, we are obligated to do. I am available for any questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: On your board, that is an'AB' unit on each side of a 'C'unit. That is a three-
unit package there?
Mr. Shapiro: That is a four unit building. This can be a ranch on the first floor, there are
two options for that or it can be a step-ranch. These are the townhouse units.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any way we can get anymore room behind the buildings on the south
that abuts the residential property? I don't have any problem with what
happens against the office use or what happens against Newburgh or
Pembroke. But I think the people I am concerned about at this point are the
people that abut the residential property. To me that is my biggest concern.
Did I understand at the last meeting that the question was asked: "Are there
decks on the backs of these buildings?" I think he said that each one had a
deck and I think they were approximately 15 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Shapiro: That is correct. Except two of the decks will be restricted to 10 feet on these
two units over here. They will be only 10 feet deep but will be proportionately
wider.
Mr. LaPine: So the decks on the property to the south will be 15 feet, correct?
`ow Mr. Shapiro: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Which means if we've got 30 feet back there, right, and the deck protrudes
another 15 feet, we are now 20 feet from the property line.
Mr. Shapiro: The ordinance calls for 25 feet. We have a 35 foot setback.
Mr. LaPine: I understand that. I still maintain that we should have gotten at least 40 feet.
What you have shown us is beautiful, but I don't know if that is exactly what I
am getting. I have to see a plan showing us exactly the type of landscape you
are going to put in that pond. The type of waterfall, if it is going to be
fountain, rocks or whatever. Have you got any plans to show us?
Mr. Shapiro: We increased the setback 10 feet. We cannot increase it anymore. We
blended all of the concerns; increasing the road from 22 feet to 25 feet, moving
the retention to the center. Even if you took out units there to try to achieve
all of the elements to try to get everything in the interior and getting that were
less than 10 unit buildings, there is no more room to move in with wider roads.
I heard you. We have explored it but we do not have anymore room to move
farther to the north.
Mr. LaPine: I am looking at your revised plan about the plant listings and the sizes of trees
`••- are 2-1/2 inches in caliper which are very small. It will take 20 years for those
trees to grow to be similar to what is back there now. I walked that whole
17821
parcel with the property owner Saturday. It is a beautiful parcel. There are
some beautiful trees back there and I noticed that you had some trees that had
Now- ribbons tied around them. I assume those trees are going to stay. Is that
correct along the south property line?
Mr. Shapiro: The ones on the south property line, most of those are on the neighbors
property and the intention is for those to stay. That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Some of them are on your property. Basically those trees are going. They will
be bulldozed over.
Mr. Shapiro: We have to mass grade the site in order to get it developed. I think the answer
is that we have this new landscape plan which has substantially more and a
new plant list that is substantially bigger which we are willing to make part of
the record. We had some conversation with the neighbors in the hallway and I
made a commitment to try to move everything forward to give a contiguous
wall of trees of either arborvitae and/or deciduous trees, 6 ft. to 8 ft. high. I am
willing to put that on the record tonight.
Mr. LaPine: Will the rear of the buildings be primarily brick?
Mr. Shapiro: Yes. When you see a blank space that is brick. In other words, this is the
wood siding.
ti... Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shapiro: I wanted to add one more thing. There were some requests for a brick wall
from the south property owners. I am very against that. One, a brick wall on
the property line is going to damage the existing trees. Two,just from my
experience for what it is worth, I think a brick wall does not belong in a
residential community. Openness and having a growth that can be neighborly
I think is more appropriate. I think it is poor planning and poor design and we
told them that that we are against the brick wall. Further, we want our
neighbors to be happy. I want them to recommend us. I want to be here. I
want to do this project. I don't want them to have another guy next week
asking for a higher zoning. They also talked about a fence. I also think,
personally, a fence is a mistake. I am open to consider what you call a shadow
box fence. I am open to consideration with the people who suggested they
would be happy with a wood fence, which I am here to consider as of twenty
minutes ago, after talking with them in the hallway. I, as a developer, think
trees are better as a natural barrier but I want to bring that open and tell the
neighbors that I am open minded to that request for a shadow box fence but
strongly against a masonry wall.
Mr. Alanskas: If you took out building 43 and building 23 where the retention pond is,
couldn't you move up those two rows another 7 feet?
Mr. Shapiro: I couldn't take out those units because my unit mix would not work and we
would have a problem with retention anyway.
17822
Mr. Alanskas: Why would you have a problem with retention?
r..
Mr. Shapiro: Because the retention is maxed in that area and in that width. I guess if you
could snake it out....
Mr. Alanskas: You've got it coming in like a bone. Couldn't you come straight across and
gain more retention pond that way?
Mr. Shapiro: I could explore that. The main reason we don't want to do it is we don't want
any three-unit buildings. Architecturally, the three unit buildings do not work
with the townhouses. In other words, I want a building that looks good. Can I
build it? Yes. Will it look right? No.
Mr. Alanskas: I think the plan you have here is excellent except for taking care of the people
facing the south. They are crowded in there even though you gave us more
footage. I just wonder if we could get just a little more footage for the people
from the buildings for the people from the south? I think the plan is wonderful
except for that particular thing, the people from the south facing those
buildings. I think they need more room. Is there some way we can do that?
Mr. Shapiro: We explored it and by gaining the retention in there, and our belief that three-
unit buildings are wrong architecturally, we are not able to achieve getting
more space. I am here tonight to add a barrier wall and more landscaping and
commit to it. We did look at it.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I, too, basically like your plan. It fits the zoning. It provides up-scale condos
for Livonia. However, I have one concern. There is a lack of distance
between the four or five unit buildings on the north and east boundaries. Do
you know what I am talking about? I am talking about where number 20 is
involved and number 45 is involved. It is on the boundaries of the units that
are facing Newburgh and the office system.
Mr. Shapiro: Your concern is?
Mr. Piercecchi: My concern is the distance between the ends of those decks and the adjacent
property. I found that eight have less than 10 feet between the end of their
deck to the next unit and 5 had less than 4 feet. That is pretty tight. Perhaps at
the next stage of the process you and the Council can work out a way to
remedy that but I think that should be remedied.
Mr. Shapiro: I think the dimensions are larger than that but I guess I can say we built
$600,000 condos with that detail. Remember you are looking at a side of a
unit and you know where you have high windows, it is actually private. It is
not people looking into people's backyards. I don't know if this is a good
example but the condos over on Laurel where they have the concrete fountains
in between and people are looking at each others houses. This is a condition
17823
where you are looking at the side of a house and I particularly from my
experience, and we built thousands of condos, I don't see that as a negative.
`'r.• More space is always better and I can't argue with that.
Mr. Piercecchi: If you scale some of those units, you will see that there are 4 feet between the
end of that deck and a brick wall. My concern hopefully is that will get
remedied before the whole package is done and perhaps you and the Council
can figure a way to do that. I am just bringing up one of my chief concerns.
Mr. Shapiro: We will be glad to work with the Council on that.
Mr. Shane: Is there any flexibility in the distance between the front of the dwellings and
the service drive?
Mr. Shapiro: No. We are not into final architecture yet. The one thing we want to maintain
is a full stacking for a car. Those are some of the things we fight. It would be
very simple if I made the units even in the front but then I would lose
architectural integrity. We can continue to tweak it with the architect as we
move forward because the final plans are not done. I think hopefully the
answer is that we want to maintain some offsets. As you can see the units that
are closer to the road, those are a minimum of 20 feet. That is what you need
for a car not to be sticking out.
Mr. Shane: In some cases they scale at 25 feet. I guess the answer is no. You don't have
any flexibility. I have the same problem as Mr. Piercecchi. Before he spoke,
I was sitting here looking at your architecture. I knew right away that wasn't
going to work because you'd have a long tall skinny building in between two
other ones and that is obviously not going to work. You probably wouldn't
want to put three ranch units together, would you?
Mr. Shapiro: We really can't. We have been frank all along that we want to do 120 units.
Density is a key issue here in bringing this project to fruition. That's the
problem. When you start doing more of those ranches your density goes way
down and the opportunity falls apart..
Mr. Shane: Maybe I missed it but, again, the decks which back up to the building to the
north or to the south, the side of the ranch as opposed to the decks which he
was talking about. Could you explain that?
Mr. Shapiro: There is 10 feet in every deck condition, is there not Kevin? Kevin is a little
closer with the details. There is no condition where there is not at least 10 feet
between the deck and the building except the two areas where we are going to
commit to doing 10 foot decks. I'm not sure where you measured it but again,
Kevin there is 10 feet between the decks?
Kevin Christiansen: Yes
r.. Mr. Shane: Did you explain what you were doing in there aesthetically, in terms of
landscaping?
17824
Mr. Shapiro In that area?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Shapiro: We have a cross-section. We've done it many times. There is a deck here and
10 feet. In 10 feet you can do all kinds of plantings. It is in detail on this plan
where to sell the units, again, we have a pretty strong marketing department
and we want to be successful. I am going to have to put trees there and want to
put trees there in order to sell them. To Mr. Piercecchi, we did look at it and
there is 10 feet. Ten feet is plenty of room to plant all kinds of trees but there
is a small detail on this plan which we are willing to make part of the motion
tonight.
Mr. McCann: O.K. I want to go to the audience but the only concern about two story units is
the density concerns, right? You said you couldn't go to the three of the two
story units proposed.
Mr. Shapiro: It also becomes burdensome when you have nine different building types. The
economics fall apart because not only do you lose density, you have added
substantially new architecture costs. Again, we are down six from where we
started.
Ron Olszewski, 37616 St. Martins. In an effort to be a little bit more succinct in our
discussion with Mr. Shapiro, and I apologize for not having the comprehension
we should have, the fence that was discussed, it was agreed or acknowledged
that you would make this a part of the master plan, the deed, and the
responsibility of maintenance would be the homeowner association. Correct?
Mr. Shapiro: That was our discussion. Yes.
Mr. Olszewski: The purpose of having these discussions was to make sure we are clear on
the record because one of the things when we talked to Mr. Walkon was the
fact that we have heard a lot of assurances on St. Martins going all the way
back to the Victor Corporate Park development how the berms at the end of
the street were going to be landscaped and maintained and thirteen years later
we still haven't achieved that. We see Mr. Trupiano's ski berm that has dead
trees hanging over it and overgrown weeds sitting behind one of our neighbor's
that has been left in disarray and abandonment. We have been assured by Mr.
Walkon that his company has substantial greater integrity and will maintain
the promises and assurances. I guess what we want to do is, the homeowners
at this time, is to place on the record and make sure definitively we spell out
what these commitments are. It is also our understanding that the drainage is
sewage and is going to be tapped into Newburgh and that we are not going to
have to anticipate that it is going to be coming across to St. Martins like was
down with some of the James Town developments that went along Pembroke.
Is that also true?
Mr. Shapiro: Yes.
17825
Mr. Olsezewski: Looking at some of the elevations, Mr. LaPine brought up a question on the
"%im. three story condos, the James Town, I believe that is what you referred to them
as James Town condos. In talking to Mr. Walkon, he had mentioned the
number of calls he had was interest from seniors within Livonia. As a matter
of fact, a substantial number of calls are from seniors. I guess I find it hard to
perceive that seniors are going to be interested in three story condos. Some of
my questions and concerns are whether or not a little bit more of a mix to give
us a little bit more spacing that was requested relative to the property along the
south side of St. Martins could not be addressed by looking at something with
a little bit more of a mix of something towards ranches. The height of the rear
elevations on some of the three story condos are also of a concern. I don't
know if we ever have been clear on how high they are going to be relative to
the integrity of some of the other homes around the street but the only other
thing I have seen, there seems to be very little visitor parking. There was a
reference in one corner or opposing corners, I may have missed that. If I did, I
apologize. Last I would like to ask the question. Would you please define for
me what you mean by density. Is that just a volume of condos so you are
getting maximum bang for the buck, when you talk in terms of density? I
know there are a lot of questions and you kept referencing the fact that "we
need it for the density mix for this development". By density you mean you
need 66 condos. You can't go down to 60 or go down to 61? That is my last
question. Thank you.
Mr. Shapiro: As we said, the condo association, the way we write them can be enforced, was
one answer. The height of the buildings is 39 feet which is not unusual in this
type of district, in my view, is still residential in nature. The answer to density
kind of goes back to why the Ivanhoe Huntley Companies came here. We
viewed this as a down zoning. What can happen before this Commission, I
can't speak to but many developers and planners had targeted this site for an 18
unit per acre zoning. Land costs are land costs and there was an original
proposal for office which was discussed. I think that was formerly proposed.
Correct me if I am wrong. Land values get established and then in order to
make a successful project, density is an important equation. You can't just
raise the price. I have to be careful to be successful. I have been successful in
Livonia and metro Detroit. To stay within this district and not go to the next
one which is double the density, I have to stay within a certain price point. I
am still selling a certain type of attached unit. I can't afford to lose density and
stay within this district. If it gets to a point of loss, the logical density is to
look at another use or 18 units per acre, the alley product or again look at the
site as office or some other use. Does that give you a better handle on the
density issues. The good news about your community is it is some of the most
expensive land in metro Detroit because there is very little of it. We are on
two major thoroughfares and two major thoroughfares planning practices and
zoning dictates historically that a higher density use goes there. We are trying
to make this economically feasible and a quality high end project in this
district as opposed to the 18 units per acre where you have daily products.
The lose of units jeopardizes the success of the project because the price point
gets too high and where we can't sell them, then we are forced to look at the
17826
alternative of doubling the density to meet a lower price point. Land value is
what dictates a lot of the concerns of making a project successful.
ti..
Walter Ustes, 19766 Ashley Court, President of the homeowners association for Whispering
Hills. Our subdivision is directly east across the street from Newburgh Road.
I believe it was June 1 when Mr. Walkon told me he had a plot plan ready for
us to look at and whoever was concerned was most welcome to meet with him.
The meeting place was at the Embassy Suites the following day, Friday. I
elected to go with just a number of people from our subdivision, with an open
mind to see exactly what Mr. Walkon had to offer. I gathered all the facts. He
did come down from 72 condos to 66 but what he really put there are a lot of
townhouses. There is a total of 11 buildings. Of the 66 condos, 39 of them
happen to be townhouses. These townhouses are big. They stand 39 feet high.
We have homes in our subdivision that are in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. The
highest height of those homes is only 34 feet. Those townhouses are huge.
That is really the main concern of the people in our subdivision. Why so many
townhouses and why should they be so high. We are not against condos. We
are against the number of townhouses they intend to put up there. Thirty nine
of them happen to be 39 feet high. That is about all I have to say. Many
people from our subdivision were here. They got tired and they left.
Mr. McCann: I understand.
Michael Swansinger, 19545 Newburgh Road. I am probably the most direct impacted piece
�.. of property about all of this. I am directly south. My house is south. It is 14
feet from the property and to avoid raising any more questions that have
already been covered, more distance, is always good in my eye. If Mr. Shapiro
and Mr. Walkon live up to what they say happens and they keep in contact and
keep us clear on things, it is not a bad project but everybody is due to change.
Our neighborhood, we all bought with the idea of large lots, 1/2 acres for that
privacy and having that distance. Now we don't have that distance. On a
normal building plan there would have been four houses backing up to my
piece of property which is 360 feet. Now I have 21 feet at my back door
subject to actually 66 or 64.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Olszewski brought up the idea of the protective wall.
Mr. Swansinger: Right. The shadow wall which is a real good idea.
Mr. McCann: That is something you are requesting as well?
Mr. Swansinger: That's right. To avoid any duplicating of things that were already said. I
am mostly impacted there, 14 feet. I am right there. Mr. LaPine brought up
that he would like to see more distance to give us on the southern border that
room while considerations can be taken. That's all I have to say.
*N... Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the staff before you leave. There are talking about a
wooden wall to go in there. That wouldn't take place of the masonry but if we
17827
have a greenbelt with a wooden fence on the other side, we usually go either
greenbelt or masonry protective wall between the residential.
Mr. Taormina: There is no requirement under the ordinance for the wall so it would have to
be a condition of the site plan. The fence could be part of the approved
landscape plan.
Mr. McCann: What would you like? Six foot?
Mr. Swansinger: It was agreed on eight feet.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shapiro, you are agreeing to do that?
Mr. Shapiro: I would agree to an 8 foot shadow box fence.
Mr. McCann: You are going to put it in the condo resolution that they are going to be
responsible for that?
Mr. Shapiro: Absolutely.
Lou Santo, 37600 St. Martins. I like the idea about the fence and the landscaping. We have a
slight, presently, trespass problem. A couple times of year when Greenmead
has their activities people park on our street and take shortcuts through to get
through to get to the festivities. The soccer fields are going in behind the post
office. I hope they have adequate parking over there, more so than they were
given on Seven Mile around the corner the other way. That was the concern of
the rise of the fence. We think that is a solution heading off another problem
that might happen in the neighborhood. Personally, because I am on the
southwest corner, I would like to possibly see that fence brought up along the
whole south property line, continue up along the western edge and meet the
textured cement block wall that John Dinan put in next to his James Town
Office, so there is no breach in security. Thank you. Other than that, I think it
is looking great.
Barbara Kramer, 37615 St. Martins. The letters that were read into the record, there was a
mention that if the townhouses had their multi-purpose room converted into a
bedroom, that there wouldn't be enough property, land, available. Did I
misunderstand that?
Mr. Taormina: It is in reference to the number of bedrooms per unit. Where there is a third
bedroom instead of two bedrooms, then the land area requirements per unit
changes. This could impact the density.
Mr. McCann: Then they would have to go to ZRA for a variance which we discussed earlier.
As the petitioner stated to us many times, it depends on how many requests
there are for the two bedroom or three bedroom units.
17828
Ms. Kramer: I don't know how their business works. I don't know what kind of profit
margin they need to be successful so I don't understand why 66 is a magic
�... number and up.
Mr. McCann: I think 70 was the magic number at first. Then they worked down to 69 now
they are at 66.
Ms. Kramer: But why is there a magic number? If$19,000,000 or $20,000,000 actually
sounds like a lot of money to me and that was the reason given to us that we
couldn't go to detached condos or we couldn't go to residential housing. They
needed this density to make money. At what point does Ivanhoe Companies
start to lose money? At 66 condos they are making it. At 62 condos they are
not making it. It is a strange question.
Mr. McCann: It is not a strange question. I understand that it is not easy. They have
attempted to answer it. It is not an easy thing to do. The simplest way to put it
is they are going to have to make a$15,000,000 investment by the time they
are done. They have to figure how many condos they can build at what price
range and how much they are going to risk their $15,000,000. If they think
they can sell $300,000 units and make a certain amount of profit, you expect to
make generally a 20% return on your investment, that you are going to be able
to risk that money. That is something that they do. They are telling us what
they absolutely feel they need. We are trying to look at it and see what we feel
comfortable with. It is a trade off.
Ms. Kramer: That is why I asked because it impacts this question about how much room
between the people on the southern property line because if you obviously
have fewer houses then you can move houses around and that was why I was
asking. I want to thank you for bringing the pictures of the back. You didn't
have that the last time you talked to us and it was nice to see what they are
going to look like. I wish that when you had talked to us and given us the
brochures from your company that you had included pictures of condominiums
developments that you had done because you didn't give any of that. You gave
us houses. They were very nice houses but a detached home looks different
from a condominium home and I would have liked to see what your
condominium projects look like.
Mr. Shapiro: We have many of them. Come on by the office. We have a whole portfolio
full of them.
Ms. Kramer: What I am trying to say is that they are trying and we are trying. This is
complicated. Thank you.
Adam Ambroziak, 37502 St. Martins. I am on the south side of this project. I would like to
bring up that fence again. When they maintain the fence, how many feet off
the property line is the fence actually going to be so when they maintain it on
�.. their own property?
Mr. Taormina: That I don't know. It is something that will have to be established.
17829
Mr. Ambroziak: We have had conversations with them in the hallway and at the Embassy
`.• Suites and they say a lot but naturally we want to get it on record but at what
point is it going to be established that yes this is what they are going to do.
This is what they say they are going to do and that is what they are going to
do. Is it going to be in the bylaws and yes it is going to be maintained by the
condo association. Is that at this point here?
Mr. McCann: What we are going to do is make a resolution tonight in our recommendation
to the City Council. If, in fact, we do have the approving vote to send it on we
are going to put in there that these things, one, that a fence will be put in the
back; two, that it will be maintained by the condo association. Then you are
going to have to go to the Council when they have their hearings. Make sure
that they get it in their resolution approving it and that it is put into the site
plan.
Mr. Santo: That is tomorrow.
Mr. McCann: No. That is zoning.
Mr. Ambroziak: I just want to know if they are going to commit to a fence, how specific do
we have to be? Alex Bishop wrote of some issues. How are those issues
going to be addressed? Is that something that takes place this evening or is it
something that takes place with City Council?
Mr. Taormina: Many of those issues will be resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Ambroziak: This site plan, the picture that he showed with the units, there are four units
in there. In the top picture he shows six and seven units per building and the
bottom picture he shows four. How many of those units are going to be
townhouses out of the seven units that are there. In his picture he shows four,
a ranch, a ranch and townhouses in the center. Are we going to be looking at a
seven unit building with five units that are townhouses in the center and a
ranch at each end?
Mr. McCann: Probably.
Mr. Ambroziak: So that is where his density is coming into. The amount of condominiums
per acre, I understood if it a three bedroom there are eight per acre and if they
are two bedrooms there are ten per acre. Is that correct? How are we going to
know that he is not going to build them all with three bedrooms?
Mr. McCann: We have an Inspection Department, number one and number two, if he wants
to go beyond it he has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Mr. Ambroziak: How many is he asking for now? Is that in the record?
�... Mr. McCann: We do have a number.
17830
Mr. Taormina: We don't have the final breakdown. I don't even know if the development
company has this yet. Assuming a 50/50 mix of both two and three bedroom
�.• units he would be permitted 64 homes. It really will depend on the final
breakdown and what he submits to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Ambroziak: So you aren't giving him an open end, yes you can have 66 and then he can
come in there and build
Mr. McCann: He can build 66 but the majority would have to be two bedrooms.
Mr. Ambroziak: I just wanted to clarify whether we are saying o.k. for the 66 or 64 condos,
whatever he is going to put in and in return if he has a sale for a three
bedroom, then they have the option to build it.
Mr. McCann: No.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Olszewski, if I don't see anyone after you, I will close the Public Hearing.
Mr. Olszewski: On the fence, it will run east and west along the south property line and then
turn north going up to abut to the existing block fence.
Mr. McCann: Is that a problem?
Mr. Shapiro: No, that is acceptable.
Mr. McCann: Any last comment?
Mr. Olszewski: No. That was my last comment.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-117-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-21 by
Ivanhoe Companies requesting waiver use approval to construct a Planned
Residential Development on property located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2000-05-02-21 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the site plan, marked File No. LV-4227-33-3, proposed by Atwell-
Hicks, Inc., with a revised date of May 30, 2000, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan shall come back for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
17831
3) That the two (2) building elevation sheets, marked File No. 00192,
prepared by Dominick Tringali Associates, dated May 30, 2000, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the first story of each condominium unit shall be brick, on all four
sides, and the amount of brick on the first story shall not be less than 80%
and the combined amount of brick on the first, second and third stories
shall not be less than 65%;
5) That all brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exceptions;
6) That a plan for identification signage shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
7) That all electrical/gas meters shall be installed on the side or rear of the
buildings and shall be shielded with the landscaping; and
8) That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted
to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied
for.
9) That an eight (8) foot shadow box type fencing shall be installed the entire
length of the south property line and a portion of the west property line so
as to abut the existing masonry wall and furthermore that the fence shall
be maintained by the condominium association, as well as all other
features of the plan;
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposal is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
4) That the proposal represents a reasonable and logical development plan
for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use
planning.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
�... amended.
17832
Mr. McCann: Item No. 5, we talked about 80% brick for the first story, 65%of the first and
second story should not be less than 65%brick. Here we are dealing with a
'�.• three story building. This has been pretty typical in our proposals for two
story buildings. Would this be modified when we have a three-story building
such as this?
Mr. Taormina: No. I don't think so. It still represents the same percentage of brick that we
are looking for.
Mr. McCann: Would it be 65% of the first, second and third stories?
Mr. Taormina:Yes.
Mr. McCann: So we could add third story in there?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is that all right to the maker and supporter of the motion?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes
Mr. McCann: Any other discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I have one problem. Number 3 regarding the landscaping. This new landscape
plan that he gave us tonight, I do not know what is going in there. I don't
know what is going in there. I don't know what the plants are. I don't know
what is going in the pond. How can I vote on something I don't even know
about? I think he should come back to us with his landscape plan showing us
exactly what is going in the pond and around the pond and all of the shrubbery
that is going in there. At this point, if the other members want to vote for it
that fine, but I just can't see voting on something that I don't know what it is
going to be.
Mrs. Koons: It's different. Did you want to talk anymore about that?
Mr. McCann: Does the maker of the motion want to have the landscape plan brought back.
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that. I think it is probably a reasonable idea.
Mr. McCann: Dan?
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like it to come back, especially the detention system.
Mr. McCann: That is number 11. We are going to have the landscape plan come back with
regard to the You were talking about the lighting. You haven't picked out
the lighting fixtures yet. You haven't picked out the park benches yet. You
haven't picked out the amenities around the pond yet. Do you mind?
17833
Mr. Shapiro: That usually goes out in a bid process and design process at a later date. Is you
question that we will move forward and come back at a later date?
Mr. McCann: The landscape plan would just need to come back again.
Mr. Shapiro: And at that point you would want to see details.
Mr. McCann: We've got no objection from the maker to add that condition to bring that back
and support.
Mr. Taormina: I believe that would require striking condition number 2 and 3. Besides the
date was wrong because there has been a new plan.
Mrs. Koons: Is the fence part of the landscape plan. Does that include number 10?
Mr. Taormina: I think that can be a feature of the site plan. I think it is going to be important
for the Council to review that aspect as part of the site plan.
Mr. McCann O.K.
Mrs. Koons: My question was about the fence. As this is part of the plan, would it take say
five, eight or 10 years down the road, the neighbors on each side are saying our
landscaping would look better without this fence because of the maturity of it.
L.• Would they have to come back to this body for a change in that?
Mr. Taormina: As a required element of the site plan, they probably would have to bring a
motion before the Planning Commission to have the fence removed, or a
portion of it.
Mrs. Koons: I totally understand why the neighbors at this point would want an 8 foot
fence. I don't live there and I understand because of the lack of maturity and
the lack of predictability of what is going to happen. You would want the
assurance of the fence and I probably would too. I just think when maturity
occurs you may want to regain the natural look that you have now, five, eight
or ten years down the road and I just want to go on record as saying that.
Thanks.
Mr. Taormina: If I may,just the other option of that is that if it is by mutual consent by the
parties, between the condominium association and the property owners that the
fence be removed then that could be built into the deed restrictions or the
master deed for the development. That is a second option.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It is going to go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Walkon
contacted me regarding getting this to the Council with a wavier of the seven
day rule. In order to do that you have to show that there is a need. If you
�''� could please come and address us as to the need for it.
17834
Marvin Walkon, The need is basically that this property, as you know, has been
approximately one year in the making going from two office, to one story
�.. office, to residential and also, inadvertently the City Clerk's office cost us
approximately four or five week delay. That is why we are asking for the
seven day waiver.
Mr. McCann: For the record, I did talk to the President of the Council, Maureen Miller-
Brosnan. She had no objection. The Mayor also had no objection for us
waiving of the seven days. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved it was
#6-118-2000 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 2000-05-02-
21 by Ivanhoe Companies, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
Planned Residential Development on property located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in the
N.E. 1/4 of Section 6.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
,` AYES: Shane, Koons, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The seven-day requirement is waived. It will go directly to the City Council
with an approving resolution.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-03-06-01 Planning Commission (Protective Walls &
Greenbelts)
Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-03-06-01 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#177-00 and pursuant
to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.45 of
Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to protective walls and
greenbelts.
Mr. Taormina: These proposed language amendments to the Section 23.01 of the Ordinance
would do the following with respect greenbelts and protective walls. (1) It
would re-codify Section 18.45 according to each of its major subsections. (2)
It would update the ordinance with respect to the Planning Commission's
and City Council's authority to approve a greenbelt in lieu of a protective
wall as an amendment to a previously approved site plan. (3) It would
17835
provide greater discretion on the part of the Planning Commission and City
Council in determining whether a greenbelt is sufficient to buffer a non-
residential district from a residential district; and(4) it would identify
conditions and/or circumstances upon which the owner of a property with a
greenbelt would have to comply with the requirement to construct a
protective screen wall There were some questions raised at the study
meeting, particularly with reference to the last section of the ordinance which
would provide an automatic waiver of the requirement to construct a wall
where there is mutual consent between all of the abutting property owners. Mr.
Fisher of the City's Law Department has responded to those questions. You
have a couple of options available to you this evening; (1) you could forward
the proposed language amendment, as submitted, to the City Council for it's
consideration or(2) forward parts of the amendment and table for further
review those sections that you would still have concerns with.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I believe with the response from our Law Department, our request having been
to approve and send it on to Council.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-119-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
,04.1. Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, on Petition 2000-03-06-01 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#177-00 and
pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 18.45 of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
protective walls and greenbelts, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-03-06-01 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will update the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to the Planning Commission's and City Council authority to
approve a greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall or part of site plan
approval or as an amendment to a previously approved site plan in every
district in which greenbelts can be substituted for protective walls;
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide more standards
designed to assure the sufficiency and continued adequacy of a greenbelt
to act as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses; and
3) That the proposed language amendment will identify conditions and/or
circumstances upon which the owner of a property with a greenbelt will
have to comply with the requirement to construct a protective screen wall.
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 begin
17836
the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience
may speak in support or opposition to these items.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-05-08-07 Lakeside Estates Site Condominiums
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
08-07 Lakeside Estates Site Condominiums requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct site condominiums on property
located at 34200 Ann Arbor Trail in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Joy and
Stark. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a site condominium
development on Lots 2a, 3a and 4a of the Isler's Subdivision. This new
development would be a continuation of the Lakesides Estates Subdivision,
which is to the south. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new
development would consist of twenty two (22) condominium lots. Trillium
Court would be extended from the southwest and would run through the
middle of a new development. All the proposed lots would front off this new
street. Norwich Road would be continued form the subdivision across the
street and would connect Trillium Court with Ann Arbor Trail. A 30 ft.
landscaped easement and a large detention pond would buffer the back of the
lots that are between Trillium Court and Ann Arbor Trail. At this time a
landscape plan has not been submitted for these areas. According to the
\.. submitted documentation the new development would be called "Lakeside
Estates Condominium". Each condominium lot conforms to all requirements
of an R-1B zoning district. This development should be consistent with the
Lakeside Estates Subdivision which specified in their Declaration of
Easements, Covenants and Restrictions that all dwelling structures must
include 50% brick on all four sides. The Subdivision's "Restrictions" also
established higher minimum floor areas than what is required for an R-IB
zoning district. The site plan does show a five foot sidewalk along both sides
of Trillium Court which would tie in with the existing walkway of the adjacent
subdivision.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have four letters. The first one is from the Division of Police dated, May
23, 2000, and reads as follows: "We are unable to properly review and report
on this proposed site relative to compliance with City of Livonia Ordinances
regarding traffic, ingress and egress, site capacity, or public safety matters
without seeing and reviewing elevation plans. We would like to see the
number of bedrooms for each unit, whether there are garages and the size of
the garages, driveway location, and or whether the petitioner plans on
curbside parking. There is also no indication of handicap parking on the site
plan submitted. We recommend that a stop sign be placed at the exit to Ann
stewArbor Trail." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue, dated May 30,
2000, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
17837
submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium
development on property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on adequate
hydrants being provided and located with spacing consistent with residential
areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of
20 PSI. The dead-end on Trillium Court west of Norwich Road is acceptable
to this office." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Engineering Division, dated June 8, 2000, and reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time.
The legal description contained therein will need to be corrected to close
within current standards. We would like to point out that the developer will be
responsible for the extension of storm and sanitary sewers as well as the
completion of a water main loop through the project. Also, we would require
that the developer dedicate an additional 27 feet of right-of-way along Ann
Arbor Trail to make a total of 60 feet. We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested" The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 8,
2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 28, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted: (1)
This petition has been reviewed as R-1 zoning, and is only pertinent to that
zoning. (2) As proposed this petition will need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for deficient open space. Required is 15,840 square feet,
provided is approximately 5,956 square feet. Deficiency is approximately
9,884 sq.ft. (3) The signage has not been reviewed due to a lack of detail.
Other than as noted above, this Department has no objection to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Building Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road. I represent both the developers, Leo Soave
Developing Company and American Four. I am sure the Commission
recognizes that this was three pieces of individual properties that were zoned
separately and put together by two different owners. It started back last
August and with the first rezoning. It was the general consensus of both the
Commission and City Council that they should all be brought together on one
final zoning petition and one site plan. That is what we have done tonight.
The development that we have here, as far as the developers are concerned we
are extremely pleased with the layout because all of the lots are interior
"access lots". There are no access lots that front on Ann Arbor Trail which the
original design did have and it has one entrance and exit road that matches up
with Trillium Street Court very well and continues that flow of traffic down to
Ann Arbor Trail. When the project was originally designed, the neighbors to
the east of the project had some concerns and wrote a letter to the Planning
Commission which we received copies of. I think we have answered their
concerns in this particular layout. One was an access down to the park which
we have a 10 foot easement. The other was sidewalks along Ann Arbor Trail
which has been so noted on the plan and the other was that both the brick, as
r. far as the brick covering on the units and the size of the dwellings be identical
17838
to the Lakeside Estates development to the east. That has been the master deed
and bylaws have been revised. The original ones did not have it in there
because didn't have that knowledge at the time of what the deed restrictions
r.. for Lakeside Estates had in their deed restrictions. We have revised the master
deed and bylaws so that it mirrors the same requirements as far as square
footage and brick coverage on the units that Lakeside Estates has.
Mr. McCann: Are there sidewalks in front of the homes as well as behind?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora wrote all of these bylaws. I assume that our City Attorney
checked these. Everything is O.K.
Mr. Taormina: I think that typically happens at the time the Council reviews the petitions.
They get copies of all of that.
Mr. LaPine: I glanced through them but I don't know understand them.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? If there are none, I will go to the audience. Is
there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Greg Mays, 33865 Trillium Court. I just wanted to make note of the fact that the developers
took into consideration all three of the issues we raised in our letters to them
and we appreciate that and their consideration and their inclusion of our issues.
I stand in support of this project.
Mr. McCann: That was real nice of you to stay this late and pass on your supporting
comments. If there is no one else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-120-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-05-08-07 Lakeside Estates Site Condominiums
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct site condominiums on property located at 34200 Ann Arbor Trail in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinance, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated:
- that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone,
on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each
17839
two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on
one-story dwellings;
- that the minimum floor area for each one-story dwelling shall not
ti.. be less than 1,500 sq. ft. and not be less than 1,800 sq. ft. for each
two-story dwelling
2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be
full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions;
3) That the site plan marked Sheet 1 dated 4/24/00 prepared by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That a fully detailed landscape plan for the detention area and the 30 ft.
wide easement along Ann Arbor Trail shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
5) That an Entrance Marker Application shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
6) That the site plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted
to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied
for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #10 PETITION 2000-06-GB-01 Livonia Car Care
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
GB-01 Livonia Car Care requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the
protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for
property located at 36251 Five Mile Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and
Golfview. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu
of the protective wall that is required between a commercial, office, parking
zoned property and a residentially zoned property. The applicant is requesting
that the existing natural greenbelt along the south property line of the subject
site be accepted as an appropriate substitution. The area in question is 35 ft.
wide and runs the entire length of the property line. The submitted site plan
only identifies this area as a natural greenbelt and does not identify the
different individual type of plant material in the area. The site's enclosed trash
dumpster area is located within the greenbelt area. An onsite inspection
showed that this area is heavily wooded with mature trees and thick
undergrowth. A small stream cuts through the back half of the greenbelt and
separate this property from the abutting residential district.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I don't see the petitioner. A motion is in
''� order.
17840
Mr. Piercecchi: If there ever was a case where a greenbelt could substitute for a masonry wall,
this is it.
r.. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-121-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-05-GB-01 Livonia Car Care requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in
Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located a 36251 Five
Mile road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 20 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as
shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000,
shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2) That in the event of any change of circumstances in the area containing the
greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a
protective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct
the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I am usually against waiving walls but in this case I have to agree with Mr.
Piercecchi, except when you look at the greenbelts behind the credit union and
the doctor's office next door, which has the same back,they went into their
petitions saying they did a little more landscaping. I think we might have
gotten it here but I'm not going to vote against it.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-05-SNO6 Commercial Lawnmower
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
SN-06 Commercial Lawnmower requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building located at 32098 Plymouth Road in the S.E. 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman
and Hubbard. On February 9, 2000, this site received site plan approval to
renovate the exterior of the existing commercial building on the site. As part
of that approval it was conditions: 'That no signs, either freestanding or
wall mounted, are approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission
and City Council.' In compliance with that requirement, the applicant is
requesting approval for a conforming wall sign for the elevation of the
17841
building that faces Plymouth Road. The proposed sign would be located
within the 5 foot dryvit band that runs above the windows.
r... Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mr. Alanskas: No. We told him he didn't have to be here.
Mr. McCann: That's right. We told him he was conforming, and less, and didn't need to be
here. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-122-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-05-SN-06 Commercial Lawnmower
requesting approval for signage for the building located at 32098 Plymouth
Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the following
conditions
1) That the sign package submitted by Phillips Sign&Design, as received
by the Planning Commission on May 11, 2000, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the wall sign shall not be illuminated one (1) hour after this business
closes;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
`"a' Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
That concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. We will not proceed with
the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior
meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will
require unanimous consent from the Commission.
ITEM #12 PETITION 2000-04-08-05 All City Refrigeration
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
08-05 All City Refrigeration by William Christo requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the existing industrial building and
expand the parking lot on property located at 32425 Eight Mile Road in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 3.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#6-123-00 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2000-04-08-05 All City Refrigeration by William Christo requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
17842
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing industrial
building and expand the parking lot on property located at 32425 Eight Mile
Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 3 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Sir, do you want to tell us about the amendments since we saw you last?
Marin Perpich, 32425 W. Eight Mile. Since our last meeting the greenbelt stayed the same
size at 25 feet. We added a four foot berm with Australian Pines on each
side, staggered 10 feet on centers. Mr. Alanskas has been out and various
other members of the board.
Mr. McCann: Could you tell us the size of the plantings?
Mr. Perpich: Six feet high.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-124-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-04-08-05 All City Refrigeration by William
Christo requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing industrial building and expand the parking lot on property located at
32425 Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to the
following conditions
1. That the site and landscape plan marked Sheet C-2C dated 6/6/00, as
revised, prepared by William Christo Architect, P.C., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4. That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet sk-3 dated 4/27/00,
as revised, prepared by William Christo Architect, P.C., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same building material used in the construction of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
17843
6. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and
shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
ft, 7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 12, 2000:
- that all handicap spaces shall be identified and
comply with the Michigan Barrier Free code
- that the entire parking lot shall be doubled striped
8. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated May 3,
2000:
- that if building is to be provided with automatic
sprinkler systems, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 ft. and 100 ft. from the Fire Department
Connection
- access around the building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 ft.
wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of
131/2 ft.
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition;
10. That the landscape greenbelt along the south property line and the south
35 ft. of both the west and east property lines, as shown on the approved
site & landscape plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required
by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
11. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted
to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied
for.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to get rid of all that poison ivy back there?
Mr. Perpich: Did you get poison ivy?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Perpich: You're kidding me?
Mr. Alanskas: No.
'�- Mr. Perpich: And you're going to vote for me?
17844
Mr. Alanskas: We'll find out won't we.
%.. Mrs. Koons: I just want to thank you for all the work you have with us back and forth. It is
a good plan. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: I believe we have a corrected date on the plan. Did you reference the plan on
the staff notes as 4/27/00? Because the plan revision date is 6/06/00.
Additionally, the petition is subject to approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals for the variance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of
the Minutes of the 804th Regular Meeting held on April 11, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-125-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 804th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 11, 2000, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
s`' AYES: Alanskas, Koons, Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of
the Minutes of the 805th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 9,
2000.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-126-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 805th Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 2000, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
""" AYES: Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
17845
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: LaPine
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 807th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on June 13, 2000 was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: 6
• es C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
Now