HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-12-15 12507
MINUTES OF THE 655th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 15, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 655th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow
James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
\r. have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision proposed to be located north
of Orangelawn Avenue between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, for clarification due to the fact that the major portion
of that plat was approved sometime ago, are we just dealing with
the four lots around the cul-de-sac this evening?
Mr. Miller: You approved the subdivision without the lots on this side (he
pointed this area out on map) so instead of having subdivision ill
and ;12, he is coming in with a revised subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: So everything that was approved before remains the same and he
has added those four lots around the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Miller: Correct.
12508
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, have we received any correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from Parks and Recreation stating they
find no problems or discrepancies with the plan as submitted. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
plat plan as submitted complies with the ordinance as related to
the Police Department. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this
development. Lastly, we have received a letter from the
Engineering Department stating generally they have no objection to
the proposed outlet, however, with the development of the 16 lots
within the subject subdivision, approximately 70 homes (including
those located within the Wellington Woods Subdivision) will be
located on a deadend street system. While this condition may only
be temporary, a secondary means of future access to these
subdivision areas is strongly recommended and should be clearly
indicated.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you say his point has been addressed in the way in which
that plat has been presented?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Along the north side of Angeline Avenue it provides for a
means of ingress and egress to either Plymouth Road or Farmington
Road so it does provide for future expansion.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present.
Bill Donnan: I am with Arpee/Donnan, 40800 Five Mile, Plymouth, Michigan. I am
here to represent the petitioner.
Mr. Engebretson: Is Leo Soave still the petitioner?
Mr. Donnan: Yes he is.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add to what has been said?
Mr. Donnan: I have nothing to add unless someone has a question.
Mr. Engebretson: We hashed this up pretty thoroughly in previous public hearings.
Are there any questions?
Mr. LaPine: John, all these lots, the way they are plotted, do they meet all of
the setback requirements, etc?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, they all meet the requirements. We reviewed them both in our
department as well as the Building/Inspection Department and all
lots are in compliance with the standards of the ordinance.
Richard Stern, 10812 Edington: That is Lot 35. I have two questions. Number one,
in the August 25th preliminary plat approval sent to us, the plot
had included the northern section as part of the subdivision and it
was my understanding Mr. Soave had purchased those lots and planned
to develop them. Is that no longer the case?
12509
Mr. Engebretson: There was considerable dialogue on that particular subject.
There was some question of drainage problems up there. There were
also some other issues relative to the bowling alley so this
apparently was the solution that was worked out. There still may
be some action up there in the future but it is not part of this
proposal.
Mr. Stern: Is it still owned by Mr. Soave?
Mr. Engebretson: I honestly don't know.
Mr. Stern: I misunderstood what was said earlier. Where would the egress be
for future development?
Mr. Miller pointed this out on the map.
Mr. Stern: So at this time there is no possibility of the northern section
being developed?
Mr. Morrow: We have the potential to have other ingress and egress on a plat
so they can work with one another. As we indicated there are
potentially two of those ingresses and egresses, one to Plymouth
Road and one to Farmington Road as part of the planning. What
happens in the future, we will have to see, but the potential is
there.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Stern, if anything should be proposed, we would go through
this entire public hearing process again.
``„ Mr. Stern: I understand. I wish to say I am against plat approval at this
time. This Commission, back in April, expressed that they were
against partial finishing of any development and Mr. Soave stated
he was interested in purchasing that property. It is my
understanding that he has done so but it is still in dispute with
the owner of the bowling alley. The August 25th plan included at
least four more sections to be developed to the north and I would
rather have it developed all at once than putting up with the
construction traffic and noise and possibly putting in an egress
and ingress over the next three or four years, so I would ask the
Commission to take into consideration, prior to approval, that if
that is going to be developed, it be included in the preliminary
plat approval.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate your comments but we don't know if that area to the
north can be developed. What they did was move four lots from the
north down to the east end. As far as we know, this petition is to
stand on its own and this is a complete package at this time.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval
for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
\..
12510
#12-536-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Preliminary Plat approval for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision
proposed to be located north of Orangelawn Avenue between Stark Road and
Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning
fir.• Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision be approved subject to
the waiving of the Open Space requirements of the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the development of subject property.
3) That no reporting City department has objected to the Preliminary
Plat.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-1-23
by Stuart Frankel requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Six Mile Road between Fitzgerald Avenue and Newburgh Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 from OS to C-2 and AG.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner has revised his original petition to include three
different classifications. The area that was to be zoned C-2 is
now split to C-2, P and AG.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Stuart Frankel, 3250 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan: I am the owner of
Newburgh Plaza. I have been the owner since 1971 when we bought
the property and originally developed it. I have been the
continuous owner since its conception. When the property was
developed it was zoned in two classifications. The retail
development was approximately 120,000 square feet, which is the C-2
zoning and Newburgh Plaza which sits on that property, and the
property to the east of that which was zoned office, which is now
designated as OS. It has been zoned office for the last 20 years
12511
based upon the demand for office space. Over the last six to nine.
months we have received significant interest from additional retail
developers that are interested in locating at this intersection.
We would like to expand the retail development to the east in line
with the existing front setback, continue the same elevation that
we presently have and to expand the retail development by
approximately 25,000 square feet. The property presently is
surrounded by the necessary wall which is required by ordinance to
separate the commercial from residential. The AG is to maintain a
non-developable parcel of land which will be maintained as a
landscaped buffer between the parcel which was zoned parking and
the R-3B to the east of the property. The parcel which is to be
zoned P is for parking purposes only and the C-2 will be developed
as retail and be compatible and contiguous with the existing retail
development. (Mr. Frankel displayed the site and elevation plans.)
Mr. LaPine: How wide is that AG strip going to be?
Mr. Nagy: Fifty feet.
Mr. LaPine: You have a wall up there now and the 50 feet, you are going to
landscape that on your side of the wall?
Mr. Frankel: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: I assume there is enough parking to handle this additional retail?
Mr. Nagy: Yes there is.
`r Mr. LaPine: The only problem I have is you have the Big Boy restaurant there
and you also have Wing Yees there and they generate a lot of
traffic. There always seems to be a parking problem in that
particular area. With the additional parking you are going to
bring in, will that alleviate any of that problem.
Mr. Frankel: There will be additional parking to support this retail
development. There is always an abundance of parking towards the
outer edges. We have to do a better job to get our tenants to have
their employees park in the perimeter of the parking lot.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be an exit to the east?
Mr. Frankel: No there will be no additional curb cuts.
Beverly Delor: I live in the third house south of Six Mile Road so the parking lot
would be behind my house. My concern is there will not be another
driveway and entryway?
Mr. Engebretson: That is correct.
Ms. Delor: The accidents there now are phenomenal so with the increase in
traffic I am sure it is not going to get any better. That is my
main concern. Is this going to be a high rise berm or is it going
to be ground level?
12512
Mr. Engebretson: There is no berm. As I understand it the wall will serve as a
separation. It will be landscaped.
Ms. Delor: How many parking spaces are you estimating for this area?
ftmor
Mr. Frankel: That which is required by code. I don't have the count handy but
it is on the site plan.
Mr. Nagy: They are adding 190 parking spaces.
Ms. Delor: There is going to be retail at the end. Is that correct?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
Ms. Delor: Wing Yees is going to be in the middle of this retail area?
Mr. Engebretson: That is correct.
Susan Tranquilla, 16823 Fitzgerald: I am President of the civic association that
abuts Newburgh Plaza. We represent 239 homes in that area. I am
not talking on behalf of the association because we haven't had
time to adopt a formal position whether we are for or against the
retail expansion. I am speaking tonight as a private citizen and
on the basis of my own feelings and informal conversations I have
had with neighbors. We are opposed to this expansion and opposed
to the rezoning for the following reasons: One, we don't feel
there has been demonstrated enough need for more commercial zoning
in this immediate area. If those of you who are familiar with
Livonia will just think about it, because counting Laurel Park
Place, Laurel Commons, Newburgh Plaza, the two plazas at Five Mile
and Newburgh we have right now at least two food stores, two video
stores, two hardwares, card shops, carry-out food places, etc. You
name it, we probably have it almost within walking distance of our
house right now. That is my first point that there is enough
commercial development in this area right now. If you think about
whether you want to approve a change to the Livonia Future Land Use
Plan, should you think about what is best for the community and
especially for this area in Livonia. To me there should be
compelling reasons to change the zoning from what was originally
proposed in the Future Land Use Plan. Right now currently there is
a vacant store in Newburgh Plaza next to Wing Yees that has been
vacant for some time. Across the street there is a vacant store
and I just heard tonight that one of the tenants in Newburgh Plaza
was possibly going to move out. One of the major tenants so there
will be another vacant store there. I urge you to just stop and
say do we really have a need for more commercial space in that
area, which is already congested. That was my second point. My
third point is I feel expansion would be detrimental to the area
because it would bring the light and the noise of the plaza 225
feet closer to the residential homes. Right now the lights are a
problem to some of the residents along the wall. With this
development they will be 225 feet closer.
Mr. Engebretson: Which lights?
12513
Ms. Tranquilla: The lights on the corner of Wing Yees. If you think about it, if
the top of the building is 24 feet high and there are lights up
there, a berm of trees isn't going to do much to buffer the
residents from those lights because it will take a long time for
trees to get that high. Also, there is a lot of noise with the
plaza because, of course, more cars are coming in and out all hours
of the day with commercial development than with office
development. Also, there is the noise of garbage collection, which
sometimes happens at 4:30 in the morning. My fourth reason I am
opposed to it is that the plan as shown, I don't believe the AG
buffer zone will be an adequate buffer because number one it will
be too low to block off the lights and number two there is nothing
along the south edge of the plaza to shield the six homes to the
south of the plaza. For those various reasons I urge the members
of the Commission to rethink this and possibly give it more study
and hopefully vote not to recommend approval.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mrs. Tranquilla, you mentioned a major tenant was proposing to move
out. I know one of the major tenants is downsizing and the other
part of their space has already been spoken for. I think we might
be thinking of the same one. I, like you, am concerned about
vacancies and if we have more than one or two I am very concerned.
One of the things as I have been sitting on this board that I hear
more than anything else from the residents, I live and work in the
area, is no more strip malls and I feel strongly we don't need any
more strip malls. I don't have a major problem with this one
expanding the short area that it is. This area does seem to be
well rented and utilized. This is a very busy shopping area so I
am not as concerned about this one as I would be if it were a new
development.
Mr. Tent: Mrs. Tranquilla, there are several points that you brought up which
are very interesting. However, what they are looking at now is
strictly a zoning requirement. What you are talking about is the
site plan. I just want to assure you that when they have lights in
the parking lot, they will be shielded and protected so they won't
be overflowing into the neighborhood. The greenbelt will be
sufficient enough to curb whatever noise there will be. Those are
the things we do look at to make certain the things you brought up
will be addressed. All we are talking about tonight is the zoning.
I am totally against strip malls too but maybe in this particular
case we haven't gone that far.
Ms. Tranquilla: I am still opposed to it.
George Jevarjian, 36602 Grove: I am very much against this. This is almost like
returning to the scene of the crime because 20 years ago when this
gentleman made the proposal for the shopping center, the only thing
that comes to my mine is he envisioned this as a piece of jewel in
this neighborhood and it is less than mediocre to me as it stands
because sometimes it is a filthy mess particularly by the Emporium,
Perry's, the back of the Big Boy restaurant. It is not a jewel of
a shopping center by any means. I don't see where he lived up to
his proposal. He has given this place minimal maintenance. The
12514
parking lot has been terrible. He Patched it up in a minimal
manner. There are still a lot of bumps. I don't feel he is
justified in expanding this shopping area. We also have continual
heavy duty sewer cleaning down our street and I understand it is
01111.0 from the shopping center. Ii we had more than this, I don't know
what is going to happen to our sewers because our sewers run into
their sewer system. Sometime ago there was some mention I think on
Five Mile that Murray's Discount Auto was interested. I think
where Frank's Nursery went in. If we are going to get a store like
that in the neighborhood, we are really going to get it. Before we
approve anything, I think we have to get a long term binding
commitment from this man as to what is going to occupy it because
according to my drawing here there are only two stores for this new
project and they are of considerable size. I want you to
reconsider this because I think it is another thorn in our side.
This shopping center that we have now is nothing to brag about.
Mike Simkins, 16887 Fitzgerald: I back right up to the proposed site so I have the
wall in my backyard so I get to see what is going on in the mall
and in no order of importance I have a few things of concern.
First and foremost is the weekly chore of dragging garbage out of
my bushes, trees, backyard because there is a wind tunnel that
comes down from behind all these stores and the garbage has to stop
somewhere. That is quite aggravating. I don't want a building
that is going to generate more garbage to be closer to my residence
to increase that. The noise factor that Mrs. Tranquilla alluded
to, the banging of the garbage trucks, etc. is very aggravating at
5:30 in the morning. As far as the greenbelt he wants to put in
there to beautify the area, I haven't been in the neighborhood
since it was built but I understand he was supposed to beautify
this area originally but it has become instead a dump. I believe
there are telephone poles back there, engine parts, shopping carts
and assorted debris. That is not something that I want more of
back there. It is also a hangout for kids to congregate and smoke
dope. I believe Mr. Tent said something about the lights that were
a concern to Mrs. Tranquilla, our bedroom faces those lights and it
took several phone calls to get Mr. Frankel to take care of these
and his first objection was he didn't have the money to take care
of this so I am concerned about his funding a big project if he
can't take care of a little light problem. I think lastly that it
will do something to the market values of the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we close the public hearing I will give Mr. Frankel a
chance to respond.
Mr. Frankel: The center is about 120,000 square feet plus or minus. About 3,000
square feet is unoccupied and represents less than 3%. In today's
environment a 3% vacancy factor is pretty good. A number of the
tenants are the original tenants in the shopping center. Aco is
an original tenant of the shopping center. Minnesota Fabrics is an
original tenant of the shopping center. Perry Drugs is an original
tenant. Food Emporium took over for Great Scott so we have been
blessed and I think we have done a good job to maintain and keep
12515
good existing retail development in the shopping center. Other
tenants today are in the market and would like to expand to this
intersection. They see it is as a viable and growing retail
'low opportunity and they would like to be at that intersection. I
think for a center that is 21 or 22 years old, I think we have done
a good job to keep it competitive both from an appearance
standpoint and a management standpoint. That shopping center is
swept four days a week. We have a service that sweeps it on a
four-day week basis. Unfortunately, the tenants make their own
arrangements for trash and they don't always close the lids and
that is why we sweep four times a week. On occasion it could be
windy and there could be some trash but we try our hardest to keep
it clean and I honestly believe we have been good neighbors.
Mr. Engebretson: I also live in the neighborhood and I am in the shopping center a
lot and I am not aware of all these trash problems but maybe that
is in the back but I am aware of the fact that parking lot has seen
better days. I would like to know what your plans are.
Mr. Frankel: That parking lot sits on a very, very high water bed and it is a
center that requires attention and we have patched it and we will
continue to patch it on an ongoing basis. It requires maintenance
and every three years we surface one-third of the parking lot and
we have continued to do that on an ongoing basis.
Mr. LaPine: Is that all you are proposing, two tenants? Have you gotten any
tenants?
*ow Mr. Frankel: We have had interest from a number of retailers that have expressed
interest in this location. At this point in time no lease has been
signed so I don't want to divulge their names
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-23 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#12-537-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-10-1-23 by Stuart Frankel requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Fitzgerald
Avenue and Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 from OS to
C-2, P and AG, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-10-1-23 be approved as amended for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed zoning districts will provide for a modest
expansion of an existing shopping center while at the same time
providing for substantial buffering for the residential properties
to the east.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and uses in the area.
12516
3) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for a minor
expansion of the existing C-2 zoning in the area.
4) That the proposed changes of zoning maintain the spirit of the
`,- Future Land use Plan concept of providing for buffering or
transition zoning between commercial and residential uses.
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. Tent: I would like to make a comment to Mr. Frankel. I have heard
some of the comments that were made and I echo some of their
sentiments. If you are successful in going all the way through and
getting your establishment in there, I would hope you would address
these conditions because I am going to keep my eye on you. I am
going to be after our Inspection Department to get in there and
make certain these things are covered. It could be a rough go if
these things aren't handled. I hope this is something as an owner
you will take care of.
Mr. Morrow: One further comment, a lot of these things will come up that the
residents have made reference to on final site plan approval. I am
sure the Planning Commission will be reminded of some of the things
we have heard here tonight.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas
Sow NAYS: LaPine, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-1-24
by William Fried for Kevin Crute & John Dinan requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and
Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to RE.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
there are no storm sewers or water mains readily available to
service the area to be rezoned. Further, any storm water runoff
for the site must be restricted to any storm outlet in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Chuck Tangora, 33300 Five Mile: Let me explain who the players are. I represent
John Dinan. He is the property owner. William Fried represents
the proposed occupant of this property if it is zoned properly to
their use and would buy it from Mr. Dinan and that is Kevin Crute.
1517
I am going to speak for the property owner, Mr. Dinan, and Mr.
Crute is here and his attorney is here and also the architect is
here. You have heard the petition. This is a piece of property
that has been before you before for some other type of uses and it
`ow. has always died before it ever got to Council for a number of
reasons, one of which is there were always rumors of wetlands. Mr.
Dinan has a wetland study, which just came in, and we would like to
show you the results of the wetland study and I think it
illustrates the problem with this piece of property. I know this
is a zoning issue but I think it has something to do with it. (Mr.
Tangora presented the plan showing the wetlands) Of the six acres
under petition, over four acres is included in the wetlands
property. The proposed development would be sandwiched into the
remaining developable area, which is less than two acres. Mr.
Crute is here and has a business here presently in Livonia on
Schoolcraft. He has been here for a number of years. He has a
high-tech type of business. He needs to expand. He wants to stay
in Livonia and that is why the petition is before you tonight. He
picked out this particular piece of property after months and
months of searching. He feels it is a good addition to the area
adjoining Victor Park because it is a high-tech type of development.
and he feels it would be an asset to the area.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, Engineering noted the east and west boundaries, the
zoning was not affected. Was there any particular rationale for
that?
Mr. Tangora: I questioned that myself. Mr. Dinan did that and I don't know why
he did it. I don't know what his rationale was but he left a
*ow buffer there. There is no legal reason to do it. It doesn't
benefit or detract from the petition.
Mr. Morrow: It just causes the land to be undevelopable.
Mr. Tangora: Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas: For the TV audience and myself, how far north is Greenmead from
Pembrook?
Mr. Tangora: Across the street. I would say about 60 feet. Maybe Mr. Shane
could help me on the figure.
Mr, Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Tangora: I would like to know whether the Commission would like to hear from
Mr. Crute about his operation?
Mr. Engebretson: That is very important.
Kevin Crute, 16167 Southampton, Livonia: Crucam is the name of the company. We
started six years ago and we are a Cad/Cam company. Cad/Cam is
computerated design and computerated manufacturing or machining and
it is one of the buzz words today in the automotive industry and
most of the automotive companies are pushing Cad/Cam real, real
12518
hard these days. We got into it six years ago and the demand was
just so in the beginning. Today, companies without Cad/Cam
probably won't continue so with our services that allows them to be
in the brink of high tech and not have to necessarily purchase it.
Now Cad/Cam is expensive and becomes obsolete. It is just a fast paced
moving industry and it is here to stay. We develop cutter paths
for the mold and die industry that services automotive, aerospace
and appliance industries. We develop programs for people in
England, Mexico, Canada, all across the United States. We started
out as myself and we have grown to 25 people in the last six years.
Mr. Engebretson: One point of clarification, you're manufacturing software versus
some kind of machine tools or other kind of products. Is that
correct?
Mr. Crute: We don't manufacture anything. We develop programs. We design
products of the car. We design tooling and we give that to our
customer. He builds the mold with our product that we sell them.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Crute, you are operating now in Livonia on Schoolcraft right?
Mr. Crute: Correct.
Mr. Tent: You have outgrown it now?
Mr. Crute: Yes, I never thought it would happen this fast. We bought the
building about 3 1/2 years ago, cleaned it up quite a bit to the
point where I don't want to put any more money into that building.
It is time to move now and the industrial section between
L. Schoolcraft and Plymouth is not right for what we want to show our
customers. We want to be high tech. I wanted to get out of the
industrial field because we are not really the industrial type of
user and we want to build a new facility and the Victor Park area
is the place we would like to be. We are going to stay in Livonia.
Mr. Tent: What you are really doing is research and engineering. You are not
doing any manufacturing? You are doing strictly computer designs?
Mr. Crute: Computer designs. We have some machines that test our programs so
we will have a lab facility but 80% of our business is office work
and 20% will be a lab type facility.
Mr. Tent: You chose Victor Parkway because of its location?
Mr. Crute: Location and everyone knows Livonia is convenient to the airport.
We have a lot of people that fly in. It is convenient to the east
side with the expressway. It is convenient to Ann Arbor. We do a
lot of work in Canada so we go across the border every day to
Windsor. With 1-96 it is 15 minutes to the bridge. It is just an
all around convenient area.
Mr. Tent: Would you say your business would be relative to a multi-million
dollar operation?
12519
Mr. Crute: We have $3,000,000 in sales right now. We are a multi-million
dollar operation.
Mr. Tent: I would like to compliment you because you are a product of the
City of Livonia school system. You started out here in Livonia and
you went through the Livonia school system and established this
company and it is very successful and now you want to expand and
you want to locate still within the City. That is admirable for a
young man to come this far. The question I have, if you weren't
successful in Livonia would you have to go elsewhere?
Mr. Crute: We are going to be successful period. We are out of room and I am
going to be building a new place. My problem is we need to do
something quick.
Mr. Tent: The building you are going to be putting up, it would be a
high-tech type building? It wouldn't look like a factory?
Mr. Crute: No. Our employees live at work. Mike Ostrowski is here. He is
the designer/architect and he can give you an idea of what it will
look like. We want a place that doesn't look like a shop. We are
80% office and 20% shop. The strip over there is normally 20%
office and 80% shop so that has forced us to put office into shop.
We want windows. We want to be an office building but we do have
some equipment that comes with us. That is the problem.
Mr. Morrow: It sounded like you were practically an office environment. I
guess I can ask Mr. Shane, the equipment is he talkingabout which
causes him to go to an RE classification, I haven't any idea what
the equipment might look like, but it sounds like it is close to an
office type equipment.
Mr. Crute: It is computerized machinery. It is computerized milling machines.
Mr. Engebretson: You are not building products on site? You are developing these
molds. As a 30 year veteran of your industry, I would like to
pursue a couple of these points. I have a relatively keen
awareness of what is going on there but I am not so sure when you
talk about a machine tool, a milling machine, Cad/Cam, etc. You
get the idea of a factory with dust and noise and dirt and trucks
coming and going, etc. and it is my impression with my research
here that you don't produce any of those things. Your truck
activity would probably be limited to the trucks there on moving
day and there may be a Federal Express or UPS van stopping by. You
are not shipping out truckloads of material and the dirt, dust and
noise are not a factor. Right?
Mr. Crute: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Compare the noise of one of these milling machines to something
like a dentist drill.
Mr. Crute: I could be talking to you and the machine could be running. You
can't hear it from outside.
12520
Mr. Engebretson: So you could stand between two of these machines and have a
normal conversation?
Mr. Crute: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: What else would you like to say Mr. Crute?
Mr. Crute: I am hoping you understand where we are coming from.
Mr. Engebretson: We are really dealing with a zoning issue here tonight. We don't
want to get too involved with site plan but we do need to
understand your business operation from the standpoint of the
correct usage of this particular zoning district, but one thing
relative to the site plan I know is important to all of us is the
height of that proposed building.
Mr. Crute: Two stories max.
Mr. Engebretson: Would that be a brick building or a block building?
Mr. Crute: Probably a combination block and brick. It is important for me to,
number one have it blend with the building next door and number
two, Livonia is my home, my work is my home. I want a showpiece.
That is important to us. That attracts good employees. People
feel good about coming to work at Crucam. We are a smaller company
so we have to have something to attract employees. The area
attracts people. If you come to our facility right now, most of
Slaw the people say it shows real, real well for its location. That is
the kind of facility we are looking for.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone would like to speak
for or against this rezoning request.
Gary Markwardt, 37785 St. Martins: I live directly across St. Martins from the
proposed rezoning. I, and the neighbors I talked to, I don't think
would be opposed to a low slung building that far back,
particularly with the buffer in between. One of the things I am
personally concerned with is the RE zoning. My understanding of RE
zoning is it would allow a building of considerable height. Half
the distance of the setback would be allowed as I understand it so
that means if the building were set back 100 feet, it could
actually be 50 feet high, which is equivalent to a five-story
building. I heard the conversation here tonight but things change,
things come up, times change and once the zoning is granted I am
concerned the plans may change and this body and the Council
afterwards would be faced with a situation where the property is
zoned and we are now proposing something within the zoning which
would be very difficult to turn down. My request would be could we
find a zoning which would restrict this building to two stories or
less? I think on that basis I would support what is being
proposed.
12521
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Markwardt, I looked into that and I am not sure there is
really a clear answer on that. As you know, these zoning decisions
cannot be conditioned but the City does have a lot of clout in
terms of making the petitioner fulfill his promises but, as you
know, he can sell his land if something doesn't go well and if
somebody else comes in, they do have the right to come in with a
five-story building but I don't know if there is any absolute way
to get the security that we are all interested in. I would look to
Mr. Shane to see if he can come up with something that might work.
I wasn't aware of it.
Mr. Shane: The fact that there is machinery involved takes us out of an OS or
PO, which is an office category, which would have meant they would
have been limited in height, particularly in OS, and there are no
other categories that I would suggest that he could go in that I
think you would want to see is this area anyways, for example some
other industrial categories. I think what may ease the gentleman's
mind is the fact that the wetlands on the site severely restrict the
location of this building and as that drawing shows now it is
set back 75 feet and that would mean he would have a maximum height
of 37 1/2 feet, but he has indicated two stories and that is going
to be considerably less than that I think. There are very few
places on that site he can locate the building. I think that fact
alone will dictate not only location but height of building because
as he mentioned, and he is correct, the zoning allows the building
to be an equal height to 1/2 the distance the building set backs.
True, it may very well be able to be set back 100 feet but if it
were higher than 37 1/2 feet, you would have a significant natural
greenbelt there that would pretty much hide the building. I think
`w the very fact that the use that is planned here, and more than that
the location of the usable area would pretty much dictate what he
can do and cannot do.
Mr. Engebretson: I thought there was some rationale that could get that assurance
by going to an OS district because what they are doing, I think,
you could stretch the ordinance to include that kind of use but the
RE does cover it but I think there is no question in my mind, based
on what I understand, that this petitioner intends to go forward if
this is successful and we can surely hold him to this. If he
should back out of this, I think I can tell you the City would
initiate a petition to immediately rezone that property back to
where it is if he doesn't go through with his proposal.
Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Morrow so he could attend another meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: Before I leave I would like to say unless there is some
compelling testimony here in opposition that would indicate this
would not be a good use, based on my research, which was relatively
substantial, and coming from that industry, I want to leave a very
strong recommendation for approval of this within the confines of
what Mr. Crute has described.
Mr. McCann: I am looking at the site plan. H, the requested rezoning appears
to be for a much larger area than is actually needed. Would that
help restrict the proposed development if we take the bottom third
`"' of that drawing and brought the rezoning line up to there?
12522
Mr. Shane: It would but from a practical standpoint the usable area of the
site is going to restrict you regardless of the zoning. You
certainly can reduce the amount of zoning and he would still be
able to do what he wants to do.
Sow
Mr. McCann: I was wondering if it would create less room for setback but I am
not sure if that is the final determination of where he wants to
build.
Mr. Shane: He hasn't asked for a permit from the D.N.R. yet but he did have,
as I understand, an environmental expert do a survey. If that
expert knows what he is talking about, they have pretty much
established the wetland area.
Mr. McCann: They wouldn't be able to move the wetland area?
Mr. Shane: Probably not. In the first place, he doesn't need all the site and
I think as long as he doesn't disturb the wetlands there is no
reason to deal with it other than assure the D.N.R. that they are
not going to disturb it, but because he is going to be building a
parking lot adjacent to it, he probably will have to face a permit
process from the D.N.R.
Ron Olszewski: I also reside on St. Martins. I don't want to burden your time
going over issues that Gary has already addressed. One of the
things that hasn't been discussed is we recognize, not having met
Mr. Crute, it is always nice to see someone who is within the City
and you want to try and compromise and work together.
Unfortunately, we never had the opportunity. We were at the study
`r► meeting last week as you will recall and we mentioned that we did
have some concerns because it is wetlands. Not only wetlands but
you have vegetation that has also been on the endangered species
protected by the D.N.R. The comment with the concerns we do have
is if we are limited to two acres here and for the benefit of not
having seen the D.N.R. wetland report to argue whether or not it is
accurate, why can't we limit the rezoning to the two acres he needs
as opposed to the whole six acres? Limit it to the area he needs
for the building construction. The other question is why we can't
have zoning restrictions on the deed that other variances or no
other changes are going to be made. Gary has been in the area
longer than I have but we have heard a lot of talk before at
planning meetings when the building next to him was being
developed, that parking lot, which is about a 200 square foot area,
that had close to five feet of water in it. They lined up nine
bulldozers and pushed that water towards the berm and that created
the pond. That flooded out Gary's house and a few homes on the
end because there are water problems here. We appreciate people
coming in and saying we are going to do this for the benefit of the
residents but as development gets going it seems the residents are
forgotten. There is a home being built right now on St. Martins.
There is a retention pond there that they have let sit. It is not
covered. It is not fenced in. Anyone can fall into it. There is
a serious wetland problem in this whole area. We are interested
and we like the concept of the building. Unfortunately, we wish we
12523
would have had some of this information so the residents could have
addressed it. If it would have been brought to the study meeting
it would have given us more time to address some of these issues.
At this point we are willing to look at it but at the same time we
think a lot of things are being pushed without the benefit of us
being able to study the issue.
Mr. Morrow: It is always good to look at the site plan a little bit but our
charge is to look at the property and say is RE a good development
for that particular site or is it not. Regardless of what goes in
there, that is our charge. If we look too much on what is going to
go in there, then we face some of the dilemma that you have made
reference to tonight. How do we begin to condition what is going
in that zoning. We can't really condition zoning. In other words,
once we change it, anything can go in there. About the only check
I have seen in the City is the City Council has more latitude in
these areas than we do. We have seen the City Council slow down
zoning petitions so the site plan can catch up and they can almost
concurrently decide what to do. Our charge is not to look too much
at the site plan, although we like to know what is going in there.
We are looking at zoning but we do wonder what is going in there so
that is how I want to respond to that. As far as coming to that,
we were looking strictly at zoning not what might possibly go in
there. That is what we did in the pursuing week and we are seeing
it for the first time just like you folks are and we are responding
to it. If we don't have enough information tonight, we will table
it. If we think we have enough, we will send it on to the Council
where they will have another public hearing and you will have a
chance to have the knowledge of what you will hear tonight for that
particular public hearing.
Mr. Olszewski: On that basis, Mr. Crute is here. The architect is here. What
size of a building is this? How many square feet? Is it double
what he has now? Is it triple what he has now? I understand he is
making a commitment to Livonia. Is two stories going to be
sufficient. It is one of the things that you have a lot of
questions on. At some point you would like to get that
information.
Mr. Morrow: We will get that information for you tonight if they will share it
with us. The other question you brought up, from a planning
standpoint H, would it be a good idea to restrict that zoning to
other than just the wetlands or would you just leave it in that
configuration.
Mr. Shane: I certainly think as you have done in the past, you try to restrict
the zoning to the development area. I don't think it is a bad idea
in this case. If you do come to some conclusion to approve the
zoning, it wouldn't be a bad idea to restrict it to only the area
that is usable.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, give us a rough idea of the size of the building and
height of the building and what you might do as far as rezoning to
RE only the developable portion of the site.
12524
Mr. Tangora: As you can see we are already very restricted by the size of the
building because of the wetlands problem that we just learned about
in the past week and what Mr. Crute is talking about is the size of
the building somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet, two
New story building. The architect has done some schematic type of
preliminary drawing and this is a rough site plan. Before we
leave, obviously we weren't at the study session, but Mr. Crute is
very willing to meet with the neighbors and go over some of the
other details, sharing with them the wetland study and some of the
details of the building and employees and things of that nature
that we don't have time to go into tonight.
Mr. Morrow: Can you give us an idea of what the height might be?
Michel Ostrowski: We have come up with a basic design or footprint of the research
and development lab for this site. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Morrow: Just tell us the height.
Mr. Ostrowski• We have restrictions of approximately 37 1/2 feet because we are
setting back 75 feet from the front property line and we are
dictated as to how far we can bring the building back due to the
wetlands. We do not plan on going over two stories, which would be
maybe 25 feet at the maximum.
Mr. Morrow: As far as the other question about the rezoning line.
Mr. Tangora: That is a more difficult question because I haven't talked to Mr.
vow. Crute about it.
Mr. Morrow: We are not trying to force any sort of an answer.
Mr. Tangora: His desire is to keep the whole thing under the RE type of zoning.
Mr. Dinan is not in town and there has been obviously contractual
arrangements made back and forth between the two of them.
Mr. Morrow: It is up to the both of them.
Mr. Alanskas: You said 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Ostrowski: I said 22,000 to 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Our packets say a total maximum of 18,700 square feet.
Mr. Tangora: That is a schematic drawing right now and obviously the site limits
the size of the building. Mr. Crute wants to review the plans and
see if there is any possibility to see if it can be enlarged. The
one you have before you now is very much in the preliminary stage.
It is not a final plan.
Mr. Morrow: I wanted to get a little bit of an insight as to the approximate
size. We are not here to tie you down to a size.
12525
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Crute, seeing you are restricted to how large a building you
can build on the site and due to the fact that your business has
expanded over the past six years, what happens say in six years
down the line you double your business? You can't expand at this
location. You are really restricted. Do you feel this building
would be large enough to handle your foreseeable future business
for the next ten years? I don't have a big objection but if six
years down the line you come along and you expand, to me if you are
going to buy a piece of property, if this land was all buildable,
it would be a good idea because then you have future land to
expand, but apparently you can't do that at this location. My
problem is to me from a business standpoint, and I want you to stay
in Livonia, that is my number one priority, that you buy a parcel
that in the future if you had to expand, you would have property to
expand on instead of starting the process all over again. Have you
looked at that?
Mr. Crute: With the cost of property today, especially property that I like,
it is not feasible to go ahead and guess what I am going to be like
in ten years. Property costs too much money. I am going to gamble
on this one right now. If for some crazy reason we grow out of
this, maybe I will reoccupy the building I am at now if I still
keep that property. Maybe I will find another piece of property.
That is too hard a question for me to answer. I really don't know.
Mr. Olszewski: Where are they going to place the parking? Is the parking going to
be at the front of the building or in the back?
Mr. Crute: All around the perimeter in the back.
Mr. Olszewski: I know from talking to the other neighbors, we are willing to try
and anticipate that this is a nice development. We would like to
sit down and meet with them. It would be easier if we could go
back to them tonight and say that the rezoning would be restricted
to that area that is going to be developed. I can appreciate his
dilemma if he has to make a decision without talking to his
partners. Maybe on that basis, if we can keep an open dialogue, we
would ask that the Commission table it and let us have a chance to
all sit down and meet.
Mr. Morrow: Not knowing what we are going to do here tonight, the process is
such if it were tabled certainly you would have that opportunity.
If it were not tabled, you would certainly have the opportunity
because, as we indicated, this whole process will go through and
the City Council will have the final determination.
Mr. Tent: What we are discussing here is strictly zoning and the fact is, as
far as the location of the building and its size, that is
germane but it is not significant at this point because we will
have a site plan to look at the arrangement of the parking, etc.
To restrict this particular zoning, we are kind of trapped here.
This is a wetland area. They had apartments that are going to be
put in there. They could have some other buildings in there so for
this particular use to be sandwiched in the way it is now, I would
12526
certainly hate to hold them to a restrictable, usable area. He is
not going to work his way out of that particular box he is in. I
feel go ahead with this project and let's move on. We want to
develop the area through there. We have a good tenant here and I
— am sure he is going to live up to our expectations because he has
been in the City a long time and I am sure he will work with the
neighbors. I feel comfortable with this particular project and
these people that are coming in because I think they demonstrated
their capability of doing a good job and they would be an asset to
the City. I would tell Mr. Markwardt and Mr. Ostrowski, we are on
your side too. We are watching the area and we will make certain
they won't throw things in there that are not going to be
compatible and will cause problems.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Crute, I am trying to get a feeling of your plan. When would
you be anticipating, once you went through the process, of
beginning this building?
Mr. Crute: I would hope as soon as the snow melts.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is an immediate plan?
Mr. Crute: We want to be in the building in the summertime.
Mrs. Fandrei: The sale of your present building, would that be something that
might interfere with your move?
Mr. Crute: No.
no, Mrs. Fandrei: Nothing is holding you back? You are ready to go?
Mr. Crute: We are ready to go. The building that I presently own is for sale
or rent and if it doesn't sell, it doesn't sell. It won't stop me.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Crute, if we should table this until January 12 or January 26,
would that one month time give you an opportunity to sit down with
the neighbors and go over your plans and go over the wetlands,
etc.?
Mr. Crute: Let me put it this way. Like you said it has to go through the
City Council. I will do whatever they want me to do but I would
appreciate it if you would keep it going. I am kind of in a jam.
Half of me is saying I am crazy to build. I should be buying an
existing building because we are tripping over each other right
now. I can't afford to have something stop us right now. I am
sure we can work out what we have to work out.
Mr. LaPine: The point is even if you got approval from us tonight, you probably
wouldn't get on the Council agenda until some time in January which
gives you February and March. The odds are you wouldn't start
construction until late March or early April, which to me a couple
of weeks postponement wouldn't hang you up that long.
12527
Mr. Crute: I think they can work with us in the drawing stage. Right now you
are telling them we are going to continue on with our site plan and
we would like to continue on knowing that you are going to say go
ahead with it otherwise I have to find another piece of property.
'4411.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, assuming we go forward, then it would probably still be
three or four weeks before he goes to Council, right?
Mr. Shane: Without a doubt it would be January before he had a public hearing.
Mr. LaPine: In the meantime these people can get together with him and whatever
problems you have you can take it up with the City Council. Is
that agreeable to you people?
Mr. Olszewski: We have no problem with that.
Mr. Morrow: If nobody has anything more germane to say I am going to close the
public hearing.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-538-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-10-1-24 by William Fried for Kevin Crute & John
Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 6 from RUFC to RE, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-1-24 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a development
which will not harm or be detrimental to the surrounding uses in
the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will be properly buffered from
the residential uses to the south.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the adjacent Victor Corporate Park development.
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. LaPine: I have no objection to this proposal. I just want to make sure the
residents are protected and Mr. Crute makes a commitment that you
are going to sit down with these people and go over your plans so
everybody is happy. We want you to be happy but we also, from my
prospective, want to protect the residents too.
Mr. Morrow: I think I heard that tonight. The petitioner will work with the
neighbors. He has offered to meet with them. I don't know what
else we can do.
12528
Mr. LaPine: I just wanted to emphasize that I wanted that done.
Mr. Gniewek: This is not the end of the Planning Commission's input. We are
just talking about the rezoning. We have the whole site plan
approval to go through. We are looking at zoning strictly at this
point. We are going to get another shot at it besides Council will
get a shot at it. The residents will have not only another meeting
with the Planning Commission but a couple of meetings with the
Council to get more of their input.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-1-25
by American House requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 from C-4 to R-9I.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: : We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Gniewek: Just for clarification Mr. Shane, what we are talking about is
taking a four-story hotel that presently exists on the site,
rezoning the property and converting that hotel into a residence
for the elderly. Is that correct?
`40. Mr. Shane: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Morrow: Will the petitioner please come up and give us a brief overview of
your petition?
Jim Pappas: I am with Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Architects. My address is 19330
Bainbridge, Livonia. The intent of the project is to renovate the
existing Days Inn located on Plymouth Road into an elderly housing
facility under the American House name. The present building
consists of 60 hotel suites. It is our intent to renovate that
space into 51 elderly apartment units, a mixture of one bedrooms
and efficiencies, and to take the public areas on the first floor
and develop those into dining, living and activity spaces for the
residents. The site, in particular, other than the hotel building
itself, the majority of the site is paved. It is our intention to
remove a portion of the paved area and to landscape that to enhance
the existing facade of the building and to improve the appearance
and marketability of the site itself. I would be happy to answer
any questions you have.
Mr. Morrow: Your site plan was very concise and the reason we are here tonight
is to change it from C-4 to R-9I to accommodate your proposal.
Mr. McCann: I have a question regarding the chain link fence in the back. Are
you going to replace that?
12529
Mr. Pappas: It hasn't been considered at this time but we are going to look at
the overall package to improve the appearance. It is our intent to
market this facility and to improve it overall.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. McCann brought up one of the problems I had with this site. To
me there is a wall along the easterly property line and then it
stops at a certain point. I feel that wall should be continued
around the rear. The people that live here I assume will be
elderly people. They can come out of the facility and go outside
and walk around. Is this correct?
Mr. Pappas: Correct. This is independent living.
Mr. LaPine: That fence is in terrible shape. One portion of it is laying over
and then there is a steep drop and some older people could stumble
and fall down. It is something you have to look at. My second
comment is regarding the landscaping. You are going to tear up the
parking lot to the rear. When I was out there it looked like an
excellent area to put in grass and landscaping back there and
picnic tables so the elderly people could be out there during the
summer months because you get a lot of shade from the trees on
Edward Hines Drive. Is that part of the plan?
Mr. Pappas: The entire plan has not been totally developed at this time.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, this is just a rezoning request at this time. We are
going to get a site plan. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Tent: With that site plan, the things we are discussing now will be dealt
with at that time. I would hope the architect would take that into
consideration when he comes back.
Mr. Alanskas: The existing one you have now on Farmington Road, would this be as
flush as the other American House?
Mr. Pappas: It is the intent to carry the same type of interior feel into this
building but each project is unique but it is our intent to move in
that direction.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-539-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-10-1-25 by American House requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor
Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 from C-4 to R-9I,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 92-10-1-25 be approved for the following reasons:
�.. 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for much needed
facilities to house a segment of the senior citizen population.
12530
2) That the proposed change- of zoning will provide for a use which is
compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove existing commercial
zoning which is no longer needed to provide for commercial
fir. services.
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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-11-1-26
by Jonna Realty Enterprises for Chestnut Hills Development requesting to
rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between the I-275
Expressway and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 from
C-4III to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department would have no objections to this rezoning
proposal.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner present.
Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, 1533 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: Our request
to downgrade the zoning on the site resulted from a problem we
encountered at the north end of the site. We originally received
site plan approval for a retail development that fit into the C-2
zoning classification. As a result of some wetland problems we
were forced to push that to the north. Although the pyramid type
zoning would permit that type of use in there, we feel it is better
to have a homogeneous zoning and have the entire site zoned C-2.
Mr. Morrow: What you are saying is it is a housekeeping chore to bring it into
a common zoning district.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-11-1-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-540-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-11-1-26 by Jonna Realty Enterprises for Chestnut
Hills Development requesting to rezone property located south of Eight
Mile Road between the I-275 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 from C-4III to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does- hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
92-11-1-26 be approved for the following reasons:
12531
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension
of an existing zoning district adjacent to the north.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development
of uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the existing and
No'"' proposed uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning does not represent an expansion
of commercial zoning or uses in that it restricts the height of
commercial structures to two stories from what is allowed in the
C-4I1I, 12 stories.
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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-541-92 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 92-11-1-26 by Jonna Realty Enterprises for
Chestnut Hills Development requesting to rezone property located south
of Eight Mile Road between the I-275 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 from C-4III to C-2.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-2-43
by Kelly Schein requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
liquor license in conjunction with an existing billiard hall located on
the south side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River Avenue and Angling
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Miller, Is there an existing restaurant up there with a Class C
liquor license now?
Mr. Miller: Yesfthe El Nibble Nook. (He pointed it out on the map)
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plans as
1_532
submitted meet the requirements of the city ordinance pertaining to
the Police Department. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The proposed location is within 1000' of an existing Class C
establishment, El Nibble Nook, 27725 Eight Mile. 2. Ordinance 1688
Section 5. 12.060 provides that unless waived by the City Council,
the sale and consumption of liquors is to be confined to a separate-
room away from the- pool tables. We have also received a letter
from W. C. and Marjorie Prisk of 20257 Angling stating the reasons
they request this petition be denied. They state the business
seems to have prospered without serving intoxicants and therefore
they do not think it is necessary for such a license to be
granted. We also have- a petition signed by approximately 60 people
which reads: "To whom it may concern. The House of Billiards is in
the process of purchasing a resort license for the sale of beer and
wine. We would also like to offer pizza sandwiches and lite
lunches. We are located in the Farmer Jack plaza, 28139 West Eight
Mile."
Mr. Morrow: I think the Inspection Department letter said unless the City
Council waived it, they would have to have a separate room. How
did they say that?
Mr. Shane: This is from the Code of Ordinances. It seems to say the sale and
consumption of liquors is to be confined to a separate room away
from the pool tables.
Mr. Morrow: When he says liquor, does that include beer and wine?
Mr. Shane: That I am not sure of that because he is referring to the Code of
Ordinances not the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, how long ago did this particular property come back for
the request for liquor license?
Mr. Shane: Prior to this time?
Mrs. Fandrei: Yes.
Mr. Shane: I am guessing probably three to four years ago.
Mrs. Fandrei: It was denied at that time. Is that correct? That was with a
different owner?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: H, would you want to read into the record what Mr. Harold Pryor,
the Inspector assigned to this part of the City, had to say. I
think that is germane because that is the Inspection report. Was
that officially in a letter or was that just a comment.
Mr. Shane: No it was a verbal comment that we received from Mr. Pryor. At
your request we called the Inspection Department and inquired as to
,` what their history has been on this particular piece- of property
12533
and this is what the Inspector, Mr. Harold Pryor, said. He told
the staff the facility had been operated with no problems
whatsoever. In fact, he indicated that many of the neighbors in
the area have complimented the owner and his method of operation.
He has maintained the building in good order contrary to much of
Nor the balance of the shopping center within which the use resides.
Mr. Morrow: To lead up to why we got those comments, at our study session one
or more of the Commissioners requested that we get some sort of a
report as to the compatibility of that use in the neighborhood and
that was in response to that request.
Mr. Tent: H, did we ever get a police report? Is there anything indicating
they had ever had any problems?
Mr. Shane: They did not indicate any problems.
Al McCoy: I am associated with attorney Sheldon Shard's office. Mr. Shard is
the petitioner's attorney but he suffered a slight heart attack
today. We are requesting a waiver of the requirement of the 1000
feet between the buildings and we are requesting the approval of
the Class C liquor license within the billiard parlor. The reasons
we are requesting this is that we went out to canvas the area. The
signatures on the petition are from the blocks directly behind the
shopping center. The 69 signatures are out of 85 people that we
contacted. Everybody we contacted did not disagree with our use of
this facility. These were personal contacts by the management of
the billiard parlor.
Mr. Morrow: I am glad you explained that. I was thinking some other party had
Nur started that petition.
Mr. McCoy: The management went out and canvassed the neighborhood. We are
talking about an expansion here as shown by the site plan. (He
pointed out the area in use) The approval of the expansion would
create six jobs in Livonia. The investors involved in this
particular project have already invested $100,000 in the building
now and are willing to put in $50,000 more of capital improvements.
It will be a nice clean facility. It is a recreational facility.
They don't want to open a restaurant. They do not want to compete
with a restaurant that is 975 feet away. The House of Billiards
moved into Livonia and they have been there for a number of years.
They are having their troubles. It is a tough way to draw people.
It is in a shopping center. It is not a drawing card as it is.
There are four empty stores in that shopping center now. The
investors are willing to expand, invest money and say this business
is going to stay here and make money. There hasn't been any
problems as was duly noted by the Police and Inspection. The
investors have hired good people. The management person is here.
One of the employees is a United States billiard champion. He
works there. He is former editor of the paper. These are the kind
of people they are using in this particular business. I don't
think it is going to be a pool hall. It is a recreational area.
There are now pool championships on TV. In addition there is a
12534
party room for the use of people in that area. The signatures of
the 69 residents they don't have any objections. The police don't
have any objections. There has never been a problem. The 975 feet
they are away from the other building, that restaurant is not
attached to the mall itself. It is off on an island to the east of
4110' the billiard hall. I don't think it would affect that restaurant
at all. I think it would be a good thing for the Livonia area and
for that particular mall. Here are people who are willing to bet
on the future of Livonia if the City Council will help us. That is
what we are asking.
Mr. Morrow: We cannot give you a variance on the 1000 feet. That is beyond our
ability. The ordinance says 1000 feet. This body does not have
the ability to give you a variance to that. The City Council can
give you that variance but we cannot. We have to recognize what
our ordinance says. We can, as far as the separate room, that is
our code and that would also be at the Council level. What we are
faced with here tonight is the waiver of use for the Class C liquor
license for the beer and wine.
Mr. Tent: Mr. McCoy, I guess what our Chairman is saying if this were
approved, it would be subject to and then it would go to Council
and they would have to determine whether they want to waive that.
My other question is, where are you obtaining your license?
Mr. McCoy: From outside the Livonia area. From the County of Emmett in the
Traverse City area. It is a Class B resort hotel license that is
movable within the state so that we do not affect the reserve
licenses that the City of Livonia holds for bigger projects. This
is an existing license.
Saw
Mr. Tent: A Class C license entitles you to serve beer, wine and liquor. Do
you intend to serve liquor on the premises?
Mr. McCoy: No sir.
Mr. Tent: If this were granted, would you volunteer in the record that you
would only serve beer and wine?
Mr. McCoy: Yes.
Mr. Tent: You mentioned this would be operated in the same manner as a
bowling alley. You would have your tables next to the billiard
tables and bring a bottle of beer there. Would this fit into the
same type of category?
Mr. McCoy: Yes so you don't have to leave your table if you want a beer or
snack.
Mr. Tent: You haven't had any problems there at all. The management has run
the establishment quite well. Why are you so successful? What
does the management do?
12535
Mr. McCoy: The people who are working there are all experienced billiard room
people. We think these people in our staff mean to stay in
Livonia, have invested their money and want to stay, can control
and will run a class act business.
0418.
Mr. Tent: You won't tolerate any nuisances?
Mr. McCoy: There is too much money involved.
Mr. LaPine: The available area, is that the store to the west that you are
going to take over? What is in there now?
Mr. McCoy: A record store.
Mr. LaPine: You have a commitment from the owner of the property that if you
get your liquor license that you will take over that store and
renovate it?
Mr. McCoy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The party and banquet room, did I understand you to say this is
going to be leased out by anybody?
Mr. McCoy: It is for private parties.
Mr. LaPine: I notice you say divided wall. Is this a solid wall? is there an
entrance from the billiard parlor?
Mr. McCoy: It would be one operation with a division in the middle.
Saw
Mr. LaPine: Where would the beer and wine be dispensed from?
Mr. McCoy pointed this out on the plan.
Mr. LaPine: Does that mean your eight video games are going to be removed?
Mr. McCoy: Yes they will be gone.
Mr. LaPine: You say you spent $100,000.
Mr. McCoy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Can you tell me where it was spent. I was there Saturday and the
carpet is in bad shape. I don't see where $100,000 was spent.
Mr. McCoy: That is what I was informed by the management and investors.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to say I think it is great you have had no problems in
the past but I think it is because you haven't had any beer or wine
in the past. When I was younger I used to go to these places and
when there is beer and wine and you start playing pool things can
get out of hand. I think if you did have beer and wine you could
have some problems. It is a thing where tempers can flare up and
you can have problems when you are drinking.
12536
Mr. McCoy: I would say that playing golf angers more people than playing
billiards and yet they serve beer and wine at golf courses. They
don't seen to have that many problems. They don't seem to have
that many problems at bowling alleys if the establishment is run
right.
Mr. Tent: H, we do have a billiard parlor on Schoolcraft in Livonia at
Inkster Road and they serve beer there. I haven't heard anything.
Do we have any information whether that has been a problem
location?
Mr. Shane: No I haven't. I think had there been problems like that the Police
Department would have responded in a negative way to the petition.
They did not. They did not indicate any foreseeable problems with
this particular location so I have to assume from that they haven't
had any problems elsewhere.
Mr. Tent: From past experiences, if they did have problems within the City
they would have notified us in connection with a petition of this
type?
Mr. Morrow: We are making that assumption.
Mr. Alanskas: On our packets we get you ask for 97 customer seats and tonight you
say 187. What is correct?
Mr. McCoy: The new correct one would be 187 total.
Karen Connolly, 20412 Angling: I have a petition here from people living on
Angling that are against this.
Mr. Morrow: Would you read it for us and tell us the number of signatures.
Ms. Connolly: It says "Petition 92-10-2-43 Residents against this beer and wine
sales with existing Billiard Hall". It is just the main block and
there are 16 signatures. I guess we are all against it because the
residents shop at Farmer Jacks. You have a lot of children that
play in the parking lot because it is always wide open. They say
they don't have troubles now. They will have troubles with the
liquor license. I don't see the benefits to the residents.
Mr. Morrow: You understand he is limited to just beer and wine?
Ms. Connolly: It is drinking and driving I am worried about. There are too many
children and too many elderly people. That is what we are
concerned about. There is no sidewalk. You have to walk through
the parking lot. There is a pet shop and you have a lot of kids
that walk over to the pet shop. That is our main concern and the
traffic. There is a lot of traffic now and to have drunk drivers.
That is what we are worried about.
Mr. Morrow: She mentioned the traffic. Mr. Shane, there is no problem with the
�„� parking at that site? Do you have any information on that?
12537
Mr. Shane: That shopping center was developed on the basis of a group
k commercial parking requirement, which is built in to take care of
these increases.
So . Bob Armein, 7374 Woodbridge, West Bloomfield: I am a retired journalist. I was
your Editor here in Livonia in 68, 69 and 70. While I acquired the
proficiency of billiard I also acquired a college degree. Mr.
Alanskas brought up the possibility that in the future if the House
of Billiards is granted approval for a liquor license, how do you
know there is not going to be trouble because of the beer and wine?
Mr. Abrams has run a successful operation in Livonia for many years
and he has a liquor license. Right now, in addition to myself, and
I have been in a billiard room since I was old enough to play,
there is now employed there Mike Barons who worked for Mr. Abrams
in Oak Park for many years, and also David Skay, who managed that
same room in Oak Park for Mr. Abrams for many years. They are
mature, responsible individuals and they will be able to take care
of the operation there as well as they took care of the one for Mr.
Abrams.
Mr. Alanskas: What age can come into there and play by themselves?
Mr. McCoy: Seventeen years of age.
Mark Jacobsen, 20407 Deering: I am opposed to this. Last time they went in for
this petition it was the previous owner, Petition 88-12-2-52, and
that, of course, got turned down. I was there last time and some
of the reasons I have for being opposed to this is there is an
unemployment office right on the other side of the shopping center
Sm. with a lot of people hanging around in their cars. I don't
appreciate them being there to begin with, especially since I live
on the other side of the wall and we get a lot of problems that
result from that. Also, there is always the possibility of
problems that could be coming from this type of an establishment
with a liquor license that might not be on the premises. They may
be after the person leaves. I am concerned about that. I haven't
checked it lately but the last time I looked there was a school bus
stop right down the street from their place. I have two children
myself and I am always worried something is going to happen in the
daytime. They play down in front of our house now and there is a
break in the wall and people come through from that employment
office right now and they bring their own beer and wine and hide
the coolers in the bushes and there have been problems in the past.
Other than that I don't see any reason why someone needs to drink
alcohol to have fun playing pool.
Ray Ovinski, 16112 Addison, Southfield: I know the people who run the operation.
I play billiards in there myself. As far as me, yes I will
continue to go in there if they don't get a liquor license but a
lot of people aren't coming in for that reason. Concerning some of
the concerns based on how do we know there won't be trouble, one of
the reasons is any time people come in there even if they know who
they are and they are teenagers, they ask them for ID. Even though
they saw the ID last week, they want to make sure they have it and
12538
it is not fake ID and they have a consistent one. If they get the
beer and wine license, I am sure they are going to be doing the
same thing and that is possibly one of the reasons we haven't had
problems there. Some of the concerns about the kids going to the
\,. pet shop or walking through the parking lot, I think El Nibble Nook
has already shown that drunks aren't going to be running people
off. I have two kids myself who live part time in Livonia. I am
very concerned about that but I would rather have an operation we
know is going to keep a eye on that. I also don't see why having
beer and wine in a billiard room would have any affect on the
unemployment people drinking in their cars. I don't think that
should be considered as a factor. If you are saying should we not
have beer and wine or liquor in Livonia to avoid drunk drivers or
to avoid potential problems, before we take away all alcohol, yes I
think we might eliminate a lot of the problems but if we give it to
people like this I think we are going to have better control on
avoiding trouble in the future.
Ralph Horowitz, 34899 Plymouth Road, Livonia: I am a devotee of pool and I played
in Abrams place probably four to five nights a week for the last
couple of months. He has a beautiful place. They come in there
with their girlfriends, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters.
Everybody plays there. In the days I have been there I have never
seen a problem in Abrams place. I have also played a lot of pool
throughout the country. It is the coming thing. Maybe 20 to 30
million people. It is on television. They run beer commercials
ti showing trick shots. I have lately been playing over at Bruce's
place and I have never seen a problem. The only thing I can say is
Mr. LaPine is correct it can use a lot of improvements. One way to
get a place improved is to give the person an opportunity to make a
dollar. In today's market I think he needs this license.
Ted Constantine, 34234 West Seven Mile, Livonia: I would like to attest to the
character of both the owners and the management as far as how well
it has been run. I have been a patron for a couple of years and I
have seen that the management does a fine job and I am sure that
the introduction of alcohol would only add to their business and
improve that setting.
Mr. Tent: I would like to ask Karen Connolly, the young lady who circulated
the petition, a question. The petitioner circulated the petition
and 69 people out of 80 signed the petition. Did the petitioner
come down your street also and ask you to sign the petition?
Ms. Connolly: They didn't come to my house. They did come to my parents' house
but they didn't sign.
Mr. Tent: Of the 69 signatures H, were there any names of people on Angling
that signed the petition in approval? Did he go way beyond where
the establishment is or does he have signatures of people right
around the parlor?
Mr. Shane: There are some on St. Francis, some on Angling, some on Long, some
on Rensellor.
fir..
12539
Mr. Tent: My question would be to the petitioner who circulated the petition.
Who circulated the petition?
Kelly Schein, 269 `Jester, Ferndale: It was directly behind the poolroom. All the
\r. houses I went to were in about a five to six block area.
Mr. Tent: You were in the general area but you did go down Angling and these
people that signed here refused to sign it?
Ms. Schein: Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Connolly: I want to correct that because I know for a fact, I live one door
down from my mother and she did not sign it and I know the
neighbors did not sign it.
Mr. Jacobsen: They didn't ask me. I had a petition I circulated the last time
and there are- over 100 signatures. That is from the last time. I
don't know if you have a copy in your file
Mr. Morrow: That was a different petition. Well now we have the two petitions
and we assume the people knew what they were- signing.
Ken Broskey, 36680 Grove: I am a realtor from Century 21. I am one of the top
realtors in the City of Livonia. The reason I bring that up is I
have been in pretty much all of the businesses that have been
operating out of Livonia. I have lived here for about 38 years and
I have been in all the poolrooms in Livonia. Of all the poolrooms
I have been in, I would have to say this one here probably would be
the one that would not run into any problems because I know all the
`. owners personally and this gentleman here, the owner of the
poolroom on Eight Mile Road, runs it with a real iron fist and he
prevents any trouble from happening in the poolroom. I am a
non-drinker but a lot of business people- do go in this poolroom and
it is nice entertainment. The owner does run it very smoothly so
as a non-drinker and a realtor in the area, I think this would be
an excellent location because of the type of business he runs.
Mr. LaPine: It might have been an isolated incident but me and the Chairman
were at this location Saturday looking over the situation and no.
liquor was being served there. That day there was- an argument
between one of the workers there and somebody at the pool table,
apparently the worker said something to him when he was shooting
and he missed the shot, and then an argument ensued. The vulgar
language that was going back and forth was unbelievable. There was
a family there with small children. At that point me and the
Chairman left and we chuckled as we went out because at the front
door there- was a sign that said "No Vulgar Language". Apparently
these people are supposed to be such good operators and one of the
persons was one of the workers there. They don't obey their own
signs they put up. I don't want to get the impression this is a
great operation. There are problems-. You have problems in any
pool hall. I don't shoot pool personally but I used to hang out in
pool halls when I was young, and there are always arguments. When
you start getting alcohol involved it just compounds the problem.
12540
I think the reason I am going to vote against this tonight is the
reason I vote against a lot of liquor licenses and that is because
of the fact of the 1000 foot separation. My personal opinion, I
don't like alcohol, beer or wine served at any sports events. I
don't like it at ball games. I don't like it at football games. I
don't like it at pool halls. I don't like it anywhere. I think if
you are in the business of sports, you are in there to do a sport
not to see how much alcohol you can drink and that is what happens.
It just compounds the situation and before you know it we have
problems.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-43 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs Fandrei and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#12-542-92 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-43 by Kelly Schein requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction with an
existing billiard hall located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Grand River Avenue and Angling Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-10-2-43 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 fails to comply with Section 11.03(h) of the
Zoning Ordinance which requires a 1000 foot separation between
Class C licensed establishments.
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not 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.
Mrs. Fandrei: I voted against this the first time four years ago and I have the
same feelings now. I agree with Mr. LaPine. I think we have gone
overboard with alcohol at any kind of sporting event and I would
like to see the day when there isn't any alcohol served. I think
it is not necessary and I don't like to see it where children are
present. I feel very strongly about not having alcohol at these
events.
Mr. Tent: I am not that much of a drinker myself and I agree in many ways
with the things my two colleagues mentioned but I think the
petitioner here has demonstrated his operation, what he is doing
and how he intends to control it and the thing I was concerned
about was the neighborhood reaction that we had the last time the
12541
previous owner came before the Planning Commission. Everybody was
objecting. For him to successfully get 69 people within the
surrounding area that say I agree. People here indicated they had
been in these establishments and it has been done in a worthwhile
manner. I was concerned about the operation on Schoolcraft and I
did have privy to some information that it is a good, clean
operation. I feel while alcohol can cause a problem at sporting
events, I look at the bowling alleys. Bowling alleys serve beer
and they have a sporting event. I would say if we follow that
pattern, then we should eliminate all the beer in the bowling
alleys as well. I feel in this particular case, they have
addressed all the concerns that I would have and I feel she would
do a good job and I have confidence it would be a good operation.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas
NAYS: Tent, McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-2-44
by Old Mexico Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to increase
the seating capacity within an existing restaurant located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Harrison Road and Sunbury
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
*ikar Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plan does not
comply with the ordinance, therefore, no comment can be made until
the petitioner complies. Lastly, we have received a letter from
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient Parking - 48
seats would require 24 spaces and I space for each employee. There
are 20 spaces available on this site.
Mr. Morrow: Would it be safe to say the Police report was based on the same
Fire and Inspection did that showed deficiency in parking.
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner present?
Lawrence Friedman, 24901 Northwestern Hwy. Suite 502, Southfield: I am an
attorney. I have represented the petitioners for some four years
both in their operations here and in West Bloomfield and
12542
represented them before this body and the Council in the remodeling
and liquor license approval, which was done last year.
Coincidentally Ramon and Vicki Castaneda own the property and
opened their operation, Old Mexico, 17 years ago today. They
'`. started as a carry-out restaurant and added seats, etc. until they
did that major renovation on the building, which was very
extensive. Basically the entire building including the parking
lot, the roof, everything was gutted except for the four outside
walls. The renovation included not only the kitchen, the
demolition of the beauty shop and the expansion of the building to
meet with all the code requirements in place currently, and for all
practical purposes comply except for this variance we are
requesting for the parking. There was some $125,000 invested in
the renovation of the building. The petitioners have been good
neighbors in the 17 years they have been here-. They have never had
a single parking violation issued. They have never been cited by
the City for anything that I know of. The variance being requested
is not something that is new to this property. On December 10,
1982 the Zoning Board of Appeals at a regular meeting granted a
similar type variance. At the time the numbers were a little
different because the beauty shop occupied the rear portion of the
building so the total numbers were different but the ratios were
almost identical. At the time we came before you to ask for the
remodeling and the liquor license that went along with that, we did
not request any variance of seating because we didn't know, based
on what the architect had drawn at the time the renovation was
done, what it would really seat or whether we would have traffic
problems or problems with ingress or egress of pedestrians in and
out of the place and whether or not there would be any fire
*44111. hazards. As it turned out, we picked up some five foot of depth in
the remodeling in the seating portion which was not in the original
plans. The seats that exist there were set up in anticipation of
this petition because we knew your people were coming to inspect
not with any intent to violate the ordinance. There are the seats
we are requesting in the facility right now so when your people
inspected it they saw it as it is intended. There is sufficient
room to get to the tables. There is sufficient ingress and egress.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Friedman, I was there for lunch today and it was very
comfortable. I found no difficulty with the ingress and egress.
It was very nicely maintained and I know the Castanedas have done
everything they have been asked to do each time they have come
before us. It is a property I feel real proud of. When I talked
to Mrs. Castaneda earlier on the phone, we were talking about the
one concern and that is the parking and we had asked for something
in writing and I wonder if they might have that.
Mr. Friedman: I do have that and I will pass it along. The document you are
receiving is a document from the doctor which operates the adjacent
parcel allowing the use of spaces. He added a condition that he
would like to do it on a six-month trial basis to insure there are
no problems. I can't control that. We have never had any problems
in the past. I should add as well that the business started as a
carry-out business and it still is at least 50% carry-out so it is
J.
still a high amount of traffic that is quickly in and out of there.
As I said we have never had any problems in terms of the greenbelt
and the parking. We have even exceeded the greenbelt requirements
that you asked for.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to ask Mr. McCann if this is legally binding.
Mr. McCann: You could have detrimental reliance for up to six months.
Mr. LaPine: Let's assume this shopping center gets two new tenants and they
generate a lot of traffic. A year from now they can go to the
owners of Old Mexico and say I'm sorry, at the time I had no
objection because we didn't have a full parking lot, but now I
don't want your people parking in my parking lot. In reality
unless this is a legal document, they can't hold them to it.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Friedman, the prior petition was there any variances granted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Friedman: On the Class C, no. We are 100% in compliance.
Mr. Morrow: It may or may not be good for six months but a waiver runs with the
land.
Mr. Friedman: I understand. The only response I can give you to that is I
understand the primary concern and the primary operations of our
business is in the evening and the primary operation of the
businesses adjacent are during the daytime.
Mr. Morrow: We are faced with our ordinance.
Mr. Gniewek: I would indicate that there would still have to be a request by the
petitioner before the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive this. This
is just more or less a token at this point in time. Whether they
have this letter or not, they would still have to go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals to have that variance granted. If that variance-
is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, it won't make any
difference whether they have this or not.
Mr. Morrow: That was what I was leading up to. The only approval we would have
to give is based on the zoning subject to.
Mr. Friedman: Exactly. It is a two step process. We need you first and then we-
go to the ZBA. As I said, we have been through that process
before. We didn't want to tackle the issue at the time we did the
remodeling and the Class C request because quite frankly we didn't
know what we were going to have.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-44 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
12544
#12-543-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-10-2-44 by Old Mexico Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to
increase the seating capacity within an existing restaurant located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Harrison Road and Sunbury
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-44 be
approved subject to the granting of a variance for a deficient number of
off-street parking spaces by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the
following additional condition:
1) That the number of customer seats shall not exceed 48.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #f543 as modified by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
3) That additional seating will not overburden the site or the
surrounding properties.
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. Gniewek: I would like to comment that the Castanedas have done everything
that they have promised us in the past. This is one of the finest
neighborhood operations that exist in the City of Livonia. They
have said they would improve the property, they have done that.
Besides that the food is terrific.
Mr. Tent: Normally I wouldn't approve a petition with deficient parking but I
have to agree they have done a wonderful job there with this
restaurant and the ZBA will look into the parking situation. I too
agree the food is great. I will support this petition.
Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-2-46
by James Staniforth requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant within an existing building located on the east side
of Merriman Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 23.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: : We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plans, as
submitted, meet the requirements of the city ordinance pertaining
`44r. to the Police Department.
We have also received a letter from Ordinance Enforcement stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient
parking space size and aisle width. 2. Traffic flow on both of
these sites has historically depended upon access across the
property to the east. If this access is denied, truck deliveries
will be severely restricted. 3. The existing non-conforming pole
sign must be removed. 4. A detailed sign proposal, with
dimensions, must be submitted for evaluation of the awning signs.
5. Since parcel 1 and 2 are under common ownership and are being
considered together to satisfy parking and driveway requirements,
the following should be addressed on both sites: a) The parking lot
should be totally resurfaced. b) The public right of way should be
sodded and all landscape areas serviced by underground sprinklers.
c) The ice machine must be removed from the front yard at 13950
Merriman. d) The non-conforming, leaning pole sign at 13950
Merriman should be replaced.
Mr. Morrow: Would it be safe to say the petitioner is hearing these comments
from Inspection for the first time tonight?
Mr. Shane: I think he is hearing it for the first time but I don't think he is
completely ignorant of those facts. These deficiencies have been
discussed with him. He also has submitted a revised site plan.
James Staniforth, 1753 Nantucket, Plymouth: I am a franchisee with Blimpie Subs &
Salads. We are proposing a restaurant of limited use at the
proposed site. Blimpies is a 500 plus nationwide chain, which is
just in the process of being developed in the Detroit area. Only
two locations have been opened within this area. We are a deli
fresh sub and salad, quick-service restaurant. No cooking at all.
Our proposal is to substantially upgrade the existing vacant
facility by totally remodeling the interior as well as replacing
the roof and HVAC units to surpass the ordinance requirements for
the City and to update the parking lot as well. I was, prior to
tonight's meeting, aware of some concern on the part of the Police
Department related to the parking for this facility. In fact,
twice I walked away from the proposal but a persistent realtor kept
bringing me back because he believed in the idea of our restaurant
there. The proposal that we made was for some 24 seats within our
restaurant and there are different ways to interpret the ordinance
but the 24 seats for customer's parking spots, that is 12 and three
more for my employees, total of 15 and that leaves 9 left over for
the adjacent party store with whom I have a cross easement parking,
which has some 750 square feet of sales area or a requirement for 5
spots for their parking plus two people that are normally there.
The City, it is my understanding, previously approved a parking lot
plan for these facilities to be shared that included a total of 24
parking spots. That is my background.
12546
Mr. Morrow: You did hear us say you would still require Zoning Board of Appeals
approval of the parking as well as the signs.
Mr. Staniforth: That was a surprise. I was led to believe I wouldn't have to go
NOW before the ZBA.
Mr. Morrow: It is my understanding you will. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: Yes you will.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to occupy this building?
Mr. Staniforth: Yes I am going to lease the property.
Mr. LaPine: You are not the owner of the property?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct. The owner is present though.
Mr. LaPine: The only building that is going to be renovated is your building?
Nothing is going to be done to the party store?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The building right now is occupied by a barber shop?
Mr. Staniforth: In the front but it is actually two units.
Mr. LaPine: Are you taking the whole building?
*gm. Mr. Staniforth: I would take the entire building. The entire inside would be
gutted and remodeled.
Mr. LaPine: You are remodeling the building to the specifications that the
franchisee sets. Is that correct?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Nothing is going to be done to the existing party store. Is the
parking lot going to be repaved and restriped?
Mr. Staniforth: Part of our proposal is to totally reseal and restrip the parking
lot as well as address any patch work that would have to be done.
Mr. LaPine: The only sign you will have will be awning signs?
Mr. Staniforth: No that is not correct. I will have the awning sign with an
appropriate display on the sign but I also plan to have a monument
sign in front as well.
Mr. Tent: The Inspection report, as far as the landscape, etc, you said some
of this was a surprise to you. The underground sprinkling system,
do you intend to follow that?
Mr. Staniforth: I was not aware of that requirement.
12547
Mr. Tent: in the Inspection letter these were part of the conditions that
we stated here in our proposal if we were to grant this petition.
As far as parking, etc. that is strictly ZBA because there are so
many deficiencies but as far as the sprinkling system and the
Sow landscaping, etc. you haven't had a chance to go through this but
would you be willing to go along with this?
Mr. Staniforth: The only new requirement in terms of landscaping that I heard was
the underground sprinkling system. I already have in excess of
what the ordinance requires for greenery and trees.
Mr. Tent: Maybe I misunderstood you because when I mentioned the sprinkling
system you said it was the first time you had heard about it so
maybe I wasn't communicating but that was one of the conditions the
Inspection Department mentioned. As far as removing the
non-conforming signs and poles?
Mr. Staniforth: The sign in front of the beauty shop definitely will go and will be
replaced with a monument sign that falls within the ordinance.
Mr. Tent: You are generally in agreement with the Inspection report?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: That is the landlord's property so there shouldn't be any problem
with the parking?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to ask the landlord a few questions about the sign and
the ice machine, etc.
Julie Alkarawi: I am the owner of the Bai-Lynn party store. Our sign has been
existing since the party store was built. If you went back and
forth through Merriman you can hardly see the party store even
with this pole sign because of the Total gas station. It will
affect our business to just remove our sign because there is no way
anyone can see it far away. We hope we can keep our sign as it is.
Mrs. Fandrei: As it is now it is not in good repair.
Ms. Alkarawi: We can repair it.
Mrs. Fandrei: You own both buildings. Is that correct?
Ms. Alkarawi: That is correct.
Mrs. Fandrei: Because we are addressing changes in the property, we have the
opportunity and it is in our jurisdiction to address the sign on
your party store also. We would prefer seeing a sign that would be
more compatible to what the City is looking for as far as size,
etc. This one is leaning so it is not in good repair.
12548
Ms. Alkarawi: We can assure you we will repair it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Not just get it standing up right but maybe to redo it and put it
more in line to what we are looking for as far as size, etc. Not
— to hurt your business but to help your business so all of these two
buildings will be compatible and look good because they will have
similar type signs. Also, you have a Marlboro sign out front.
What was that?
Ms. Alkarawi: The company put that sign in. We were concerned about that. The
first question we asked him was if the City would approve that and
they said we don't think they would object to that. We can remove
it right away.
Mrs. Fandrei: I think you need to work with our staff on the total sign package.
The other thing that was mentioned is the ice machine.
Ms. Alkarawi: We have to contact the company to remove it. Can I ask what is the
reason to remove it?
Mrs. Fandrei: It isn't conforming with the City's regulations. It isn't allowed
on the property. According to our report from Inspection it is
just not allowed.
Ms. Alkarawi: We have to contact the company. Can I ask one question. Which
kind of sign am I allowed?
Mrs. Fandrei: The staff can help you. We can vote on this subject to and you can
work out the signs with the department.
rr Mr. McCann: When they say remove the ice machine, they no longer want it on the
outside of the premises. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: That is a unit that should be inside the building rather than in
the front yard area. It is not allowed by ordinance. They can put
it inside the building, otherwise remove it.
Mr. Alanskas: On your revised site plan you are adding a four foot backwalk so
you are taking four feet out of the sodded area. Is that correct?
Mr. Staniforth: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: The landscaping will be less now.
Mr. Staniforth: It is less but it works out to be 14.9%.
Mr. Alanskas: Also if you take the ice machine out you show an asphalt walk.
Will that be coming out and the area sodded?
Mr. Staniforth: Probably so. There would be no reason for having that pathway.
Ms. Alkarawi: If we have trees it would be blocking our window where we put our
sign. If you can replace those trees with shrubs instead.
12549
Mr. Shane: You can get different varieties either shorter or higher. That is
something we can work out with them.
Mr. McCann: To the staff, now we are coming under a new revised site plan, will
\rw they fall within the 25% window signage area?
Mr. Shane: That is with respect to the sign ordinance. They will have to come
back before you with the sign proposal or you can deal with it now
with your conditions. It is always stronger when you put it in
your resolution.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are you changing the exterior of the building at all?
Mr. Staniforth: The plan was to add the awning to that wood facade, to put a new
roof on, to clean the brick, to replace the windows. That is the
extent. We would still have the gray brick veneer.
Mrs. Fandrei: Did you bring with you any idea of what color the awning will be
and are you having a sign on the awning?
Mr. Staniforth passed pictures around.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Ned Grover, 31330 Schoolcraft: I am an Optometrist and our clinic is adjacent to
the east. Myself and some of my partners have some real concerns
about this. The first one is basically the parking. As you
gentlemen and ladies probably know that has been the site of
problems before until the other parties bought the barber shop and
beauty parlor. The way the whole parcel is situated it is very
narrow and I don't think you can get 25 parking spaces in there all
at one time and have them utilized all at one time especially as
the day goes on and there are several garbage trucks and beer
trucks, etc. and they can take up about five parking spaces and
sometimes they can be there for half an hour. The original owners,
when Dr. Beecher and I initially bought the property about 16 years
ago, was owned by an elderly couple and we made an agreement with
them that we would keep it open with your permission, which you
approved, to allow that because the City Council and zoning people
wanted us to close that off to stop the excess of cars coming
through there. We have great concerns for our patients. We have
four optometrists and two dentists in our building and there are a
lot of elderly people walking through our parking lot and they use
our parking lot now as an access to go to Merriman Road. That is
always a concern of ours and now with additional activity. When
there was a barber shop it was pretty easy coming and going. There
were only two chairs in the barber shop and the beauty shop has
been closed for about a year. With a fast serve food situation we
are really concerned with the in and out access to the parking lot
and it is going to be a tremendous amount of increase in the
parking. More car activity, more concern with people sneaking
through our parking lot and we have a great concern about that.
Another concern is the litter. There is a considerable amount of
litter from the party store itself. When I get there at 6:30 in
12550
the morning many times I pick up several beer cans, etc. and with
the access to the fast food place I can see more litter. I am
concerned about that. Other people in the area, which will speak
after me, are concerned. Parking is a big concern. This is why we
moved to Livonia. We have been there for over 14 years and we have
Nor extra parking. That is why we are there and it has been a
wonderful place. It is interesting now since the party store
owners all of a sudden realized they haven't maintained their place
and they are willing to make concessions to get rid of some of the
eyesores and we put a $3500 sign up with your permission and made
it to the code and just recently we improved our sign. We are
trying to keep our property up. We would appreciate your concern
and consideration and we bring these concerns to you to make it an
attractive setting and a safe setting and a non-littered setting.
Mrs. Fandrei: You haven't had encroachments on your property as far as parking
goes because the barber shop wasn't that active. Is that correct?
Dr. Grover: At this point. The only time we had encroachment on our parking
was when the other people owned the party store at Christmas time
because the original people that owned the party store were very
good neighbors, whom we actually bought the property from. They
have now retired and sold the party store and there have been two
different owners since that time. We would always give them
permission on a Saturday. If they wanted to use our parking we
said you can let your employees park over there. It was just a
good relationship. We haven't had that relationship since then.
Mrs. Fandrei: It has been your decision to keep the opening?
Nos" Dr. Grover: The original land contract when we bought the property was when we
got the site built we would keep it open as long as the Spencers,
which were the original party store owners, stayed because they
were concerned for their own people and they thought it would be
easier access and we agreed to that. The way the land contract
read that as long as the original owners were there we would keep
it open. Our concern would be if indeed it became a problem, we
would close off that and we have permission to do it.
Mrs. Fandrei: You could automatically do that so it would be for the petitioner's
benefit to take care that there weren't encroachments that would
cause problems.
Dr. Grover: The parking is the basic problem but litter is a big concern too.
Mr. Alanskas: What are your business hours?
Mr. Staniforth: We are primarily a lunch business 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. and
then a dinner business as well.
Mr. Alanskas: How many cars would you say would go there between 11:00 a.m. until
2:00 p.m.?
12551
Mr. Staniforth: If we follow the trend of other locations and the majority of our
business will be carry-out, on an average of five to ten
automobiles at one time. We are going to move them fast.
'�• Mr. Alanskas: Would you be like Subway?
Mr. Staniforth: Similar concept. We are more upscale.
Dr. Les Bowers, 14026 Edgewood Drive, Livonia: I have the property directly north.
Even without the barber shop as Dr. Grover mentioned we have people
parking in our lot to go to the connecting party store and to the
surrounding areas and I only see that this will further increase
that problem with my parking lot. Plus we have a new building
opening directly across the road. I am sure you are all aware that
traffic on Merriman Road is really something else and to make a
left turn coming out of my property is quite an achievement at most
times of the day and when this other building opens it is going to
really be a picnic with traffic coming and going.
Truman Strong, 13992 Merriman Road: I own the property just north of Dr. Bowers.
The problem I forsee there is the huge amount of traffic in trying
to bring trucks in to the restaurant and party store when you don't
have two-way traffic in the parking lot. I really believe the
reason the party store bought the adjacent building was because
they were fighting over the parking. They just cannot do the
amount of business necessary to stay in business.
Bud Alden, 30100 Telegraph Road, Birmingham: I am the area developer in
southeastern Michigan for Blimpie Subs & Salads and I thought I
could put in perspective for you what our concept is. You compared
`► us to like a Subway. It is in that general segment but we consider
ours to be much more of an upscale to that in that our meats and
cheeses are sliced fresh as in a deli. The quality of the meats
and cheeses that we use are substantially better we believe. We
have tables and chairs, carpeting and the ambience within the
restaurant is much more upscale and I really could not consider it
fast food but it is quick service. Again, as Mr. Staniforth had
mentioned we anticipate the majority of the business would be on a
take-out basis, probably on a 60/40 basis. We do operate on
limited hours approximately 12 hours a day, opening 10:30 a.m. for
lunch and closing 9:30 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. It was with my
recommendation that we proceed at this location and I understood
that there was some history of controversy with regard to the
parking. I believe at one time it was like the Hatfields and
McCoys and finally the current landlord had bought out the existing
operator next door so they could have a suitable parking
arrangement. With regard to the access into the doctors' offices,
I view that as almost a detriment with traffic flowing from our
business to their business. It would be my recommendation that it
be cut off. I don't think it would be suitable for our business.
We view this as an opportunity to improve the building and the
site. We looked at it and quite frankly it did need substantial
improvements. Mr. Staniforth is proposing on investing $75,000
minimum into the building. That is exclusive of his equipment
12552
inside and furnishings. We recognize that it has a history of
being somewhat unsightly in the area and we felt with replacement
of signage, with the improvements to the building, with the
addition of a roof system, improvements in parking and with
compliance with the City now with 14.97% greenery, presently there
\ft" is nothing it is all asphalt, that this could be a substantial
improvement to the community and it was with that intention and our
understanding that we wanted to proceed.
Mrs. Fandrei: You recommended closing the dividing area between the doctors'
offices and this property. How would the trucks maneuver? That
area doesn't seem to be large enough.
Mr. Alden: Our delivery trucks would be rather small. I think the trucks they
were referring to would be the brewery trucks. Typically they come
in before the proposed business would start. Typically with
businesses like that you arrange for deliveries in the off hours.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am concerned about the size of the delivery trucks if there is no
access in or out from Schoolcraft.
Ms. Alkarawi: None of the trucks go through the property of the doctors. They
come in and turn and they go back to Merriman. They deliver early
when there are no cars parking there. Any time we have any trucks,
they know the other property is not ours so they come in from
Merriman and they go back to Merriman without interfering with the
doctors' building plus our customers always park on our side. We
have never seen any customer park at the doctors' building. There
is plenty of parking.
'oirr Larry Beecher, 31330 Schoolcraft: I am co-owner of the clinic building. I think
if I were the gentleman looking at this, I would look very, very
closely at that parking, If indeed we are forced to close that
off, we have kept it open not for our convenience but to be a good
neighbor and I think if it were closed off, I think it will be
virtually impossible to operate those two businesses. I do not
think you can have ingress and egress into those parking lots with
two or three beer trucks, pop trucks, etc. in there for an hour at
a time. Incidentally, we have trained these drivers not to go
through and bust up our parking lot because those things are heavy.
Two or three times we have thought about closing that off but we
wanted to maintain good relationships with the people in the area.
It has been more convenient but indeed if it does become a nuisance
and we have to close it off, I think it will be virtually
impossible for them to operate that business.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-11-2-48 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-46 by James Staniforth requesting waiver
use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing
12553
building located on the east side of Merriman Road, north of Schoolcraft
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-46 be
denied for the following reasons:
'r'. 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 fails to comply with Section 18.37 of the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to the size of off-street parking
spaces and access aisle width.
3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#f543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow passed the gavel back to Mr. Engebretson, Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: I have heard some things here tonight that I am going to offer a
tabling resolution. I want to go back to the site and examine some
of the things we have said tonight.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#12-544-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does here by determine to
*law table Petition 92-10-2-46 by James Staniforth requesting waiver use
approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing
building located on the east side of Merriman Road, north of Schoolcraft
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, until the study meeting of
January 5, 1993.
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 on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Tent, Gniewek
ABSTAIN: Engebretson
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-11-2-48
by Jonna Companies requesting waiver use approval to construct a new
retail store (Source Club) to be located south of Eight Mile Road
between 1-275 and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
12554
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department
has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Also in our file
is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal. However, this approval is contingent
upon further review of an approved water main with on-site
hydrants. The location of the on-site hydrants will be determined
later, pending the location of the fire department connection.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the proposed building would be allowed one wall
sign. Any additional signage will require Zoning Board of Appeals
approval.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a multifaceted action. It is a waiver use to construct a
retail store called the Source Club, a division of Meijers Thrifty
Acres, at this location and with that comes the site plan approval
and to make it a bit more complicated, this particular site plan
has been presented such that it would also include the Target
Store, which has been previously approved, since it was necessary
to move that Target Store to accommodate some new discovery of
wetlands that prevented the construction on the original site so
with that we can focus principally on the Source Club Mr. Jonna but
if you care to correct or amend any of the statements made relative
to the Target Store.
'NurFrank Jonna, 1533 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: Your statement was absolutely
correct in the sequence of events that we went through. We did
appear before you and got approval for the Target Store. That was
amended and ultimately the amended plan was approved at Council
level along with some amendments to the building elevations as
well.
Mr. Engebretson: Let's talk about the Source Club.
Mr. Jonna: With me tonight is the Architect, Michael Corby and Tim Platt of
the Source Club. I would like to focus on the site plan and
Michael will address architectural issues and Tim will respond to
issues relating to the operation of the Source Club. (He presented
the site plan)
Mr. Engebretson: The site plan from the freeway would cause me to believe the
equipment on the rooftop would not be visible from the freeway. Is
that correct?
Mr. Jonna: That is absolutely our intent. That is what we are committed to do
to make sure the rooftop equipment is not visible from the freeway.
Mr. Engebretson: On that slight curve there if that site plan depicts reality, we
won't see it from the freeway but if we should, what can you do
about it?
_:555
Mr. Jonna: I guess- they- would raise the berm.
Mr. Engebretson: Is it visible- from Haggerty Road?
Mr. Jonna-: No.
Michael Corby with Integrated Architecture: (He presented the elevation plan. )
Mr. Engebretson: Have you had an opportunity to put these materials alongside the
materials planned for the Target Store to insure compatibility?
Mr. Corby: Yes. In fact, we have the samples for Target here so you can
compare them.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is this the landscape plan that was originally prepared
for the Target project?
Mr. Jonna: We are developing a landscape plan that will incorporate- the two
sites together.
Mr. Nagy: They are integrating the- two landscape plans.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Jonna, our approving this without seeing the revised landscape
plan won-'t discourage you from coming up with a better- landscape
plan? If we approve- this tonight you won't say I'm home free.
M-r. Jonna: Absolutely not.
Mr. Gniewek: You are indicating three signs on the building. Is that correct?
Mr. Corby: Yes on the north, west and east.
Mr. Gniewek: I would indicate- there-is no mention in our prepared resolution
about the fact you will have to go to the- Zoning Board of Appeals
to get that approved.
Mr. Jonna: I believe that was in one of the letters.
Mr. Engebretson: it is probably relatively unimportant to deal with those sign
issues right now. It is more important to deal with the waiver use
and site plan so he can go forward.
Tim Platt. Vice President of Real Estate for the Source Club division of Meijers:
I am a long-te-rm•Me-ijer veteran. I have been- with Meijers- for 22
years and have worked in real estate the past 8 or 9 year-s. Source
Club is a relatively new division of Meijers. It has only been in
business- a little over a year. We have- opened our first two clubs
in the past two weeks, one in East Lansing. Last week we opened a
club in Fraser. They have met with great response. What we have
done is we have taken some of the best ideas that are out there -in
the club business and hopefully improved on them. I hope some- of
you folks had an opportunity to visit the one in Fraser. One of
the things you have to say about it is that it certainly does not
look like a typical wholesale club in the interior. We- have taken
the lighting up to a very high level. It is nice and bright. As a
12556
matter of fact I was at the Taylor Meijer store today. We are
opening a Source Club right across from Southgate Mall there and
had walked out of the Source Club over to the Meijer store and
couldn't believe how dark it was inside there by comparison. We
believe that we have come pretty close to hitting a home run here.
Nem' Our first two clubs met with great success. The club industry is
one that is growing by leaps and bounds. It is expected to be a 58
billion dollar business nationwide and predictions are that next
year it will be in the 90 billion dollar range and by the end of
the decade somewhere in the 150 billion dollar range. If there are
any questions regarding whether or not we are going to siphon off
sales from Meijers or if it going to be a viable business, I will
be happy to take those.
Mr. Morrow: I don't visit a lot of clubs so I really don't know what I would
expect to see when I walked into one. Could you just give me a
brief description of what you market and how you market it?
Mr. Platt: Initially when this business first got started- it was geared toward
basically almost 100% business. When the Price club started it was
in business to sell to party stores, bakeries, restaurants, etc.
who were not large enough to operate through a wholesaler on a
regular basis. It turned out there wasn't enough business there so
they opened it to the public. In the 15 years since that has
happened a real evolution has taken place in the business. What
you will find nowadays instead of just 100 pound sacks of flour and
50 pound bags of potatoes, last week for example we had men's
Nautical coats. We have a full selection of men's clothing,
women's clothing, housewares, groceries. We have a fresh bakery, a
fresh meat department, fresh produce department. I was taken aback
by some of the name brands that I saw. We have very, very nice
jewelry along with pens, Magnavox TV's, Zenith TV's, top name
stereos. You pretty much name it, we have it.
Mr. Morrow: Can you co-exist with the Target next door and Meijers across the
street?
Mr. Platt: There will certainly be a bit of siphoning off of sales from
Meijers. We expect that but if we don't do it someone else is
going to do it.
Mr. Tent: Meijers is open 24 hours. Will the Source Club be open the same
hours?
Mr. Platt: No. The standard hours are 10:00 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. , Monday
through Friday. 9:00 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. on Saturday and noon
until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mr. Tent: Do you have any hours when businesses can come in?
Mr. Platt: They would come in from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Tent: How much is membership into the Source Club?
12557
Mr. Platt: For $20 you get two cards as compared to most of our competitors
charge $35 for two cards.
Mr. Tent: If someone wanted to come in without buying a card, do you have a
special card?
Mr. Platt: We will do that on a one-day basis or a 60-day pass but we don't
have a standard 5% markup card.
Mr. LaPine: I am just curious. Meijers opens up on one side of the street and
Source Club opens up on the other side. You are really in
competition with each other? Some of the items sold at Meijers
will be sold at the Source Club?
Mr. Platt: Very few items. Food would probably be the place where you would
have the most crossover.
Mr. LaPine: At Meijers you can buy a pound of hamburger but over here you might
have to buy a five pound bag?
Mr. Platt: You might have to buy a two pound bag or instead of buying one can
of green beans you might have to buy a six pack.
Mr. LaPine: Why do these warehouse clubs charge a membership fee? I would
think you would want everyone and his brother to come into the
store. Why do you charge to go into the store?
Mr. Platt: There are several reasons behind that. One of the reasons is that
is where you derive a good portion of your profit. Because you are
buying, not necessarily huge volumes but trying to pass that along
at the lowest possible price you can, your membership fee makes up
a good portion of the profit.
Mr. LaPine: So the membership fee is a good source of revenue?
Mr. Platt: Several years back a lot of the clubs claimed that was their only
source of revenue.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding that crossover from Meijers to the Source Club,
approximately how many different merchandise items would you have
at Source Club.
Mr. Platt: The Source Club would carry 3800 to 4000 items.
Mr. Engebretson: How many would you have at Meijers?
Mr. Platt: Well in excess of 100,000.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding this phenomenon of expansion of the membership
warehouse type of marketplace, who is giving up this business to
the membership type of operation? Where does that business get
drained off?
12558
Mr. Platt: I think a portion of it is coming from the standard supermarket, a
portion from mass merchants like Meijers and also a portion of it
from distributors who can't readily service the small operator on a
regular basis.
',No ' Mr. Engebretson: So while this industry grows by tens of billions of dollars a
year, then obviously there is a cash loss somewhere along the way
but not necessarily in just one category.
Mr. Platt: Exactly.
Mr. Engebretson: What difference is the Source Club from other membership type
retail operators?
Mr. Platt: One of the things that we are really trying to do is give the feel
that you are not in a dungeon. I don't know how many folks have
shopped at a Pace or some of the other clubs around and not to take
anything away from them because they have done a good job but we
wanted to lighten it up a little, make it look more like the place
you would like to shop. We have probably the best merchant right
now, a gentleman named Bob Bartlett who is heading up our
merchandising end, and the interesting thing about club shopping
overall is this week we may have Nautical jackets for $129.95.
Once they are sold out we may not have those again but we will have
something else. I hate to use the word upscale but I guess what
you can say is we are trying to make it just a little nicer place
to shop.
Mr. Engebretson: Does your merchandising strategy vary from store to store?
Mr. Platt: It certainly will.
Mr. Engebretson: I noticed at your Fraser store the other day that on the big
ticket items such as televisions, etc. there was someone there to
answer questions. Is that a grand opening strategy or is that
something that you would expect that you could walk in a Source
Club facility and get help with questions on high-tech items?
Mr. Platt: That is one of the things that we are really trying to put some
emphasis on because a lot of items in this business you sell at a
minimal markup. Those are large ticket items where you can make
some money and so we are trying to provide a little more service
there. You are not going to sell someone a $5,000 computer without
having someone there who is knowledgeable about the item.
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees will you have at this facility?
Mr. Platt: Approximately 150.
Mr. Alanskas: How many will be part time?
Mr. Platt: About 40%.
Mr. LaPine: in the summertime will you sell anything outside?
12559
Mr. Platt: No.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of security are you going to have? There have been
problems at the Meijer store across the street.
Mr. Platt: I think there are two different types of shopping we are talking
about, one that is open to everybody 24 hours a day and another one
that is open 10 to 11 hours a day. If it becomes a problem, we
will have our own in-the-store security force. At this point, we
have no lot patrols planned nor do we think we will ever have a
need for them.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-11-2-48 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-545-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
15, 1992 on Petition 92-11-2-48 by Jonna Companies requesting waiver use
approval to construct a new retail store (Source Club) to be located
south of Eight Mile Road between I-275 and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-11-2-48 be approved
subject to the approval of Petition 92-11-1-26 (proposed change of
zoning to C-2 of a portion of the subject property) by the City Council
and to the following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 10/8/92 prepared by Land
Tech, Engineers, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
Saw
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 12-15-92 prepared by Land
Tech Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan dated 10/8/92 prepared by Land Tech,
Engineers, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and the
landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
4) That a sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and
City Council for their approval prior to the issuance of a sign
erection permit.
5) That the parapet wall proposed to be constructed as part of the
proposed building and as illustrated on a Site Line Section drawing
dated 12-15-92 prepared by Integrated Architecture shall be of
sufficient height so as to totally screen all roof-top mechanical
units from public view from any direction.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
12560
2) That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
X12-546-92 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 92-11-2-48 by Jonna Companies requesting waiver
use approval to construct a new retail store (Source Club) to be located
south of Eight Mile Road between 1-275 and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 653rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on November
17, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#12-547-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 653rd Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on November 17, 1992 are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 654th Regular Meeting of the City Planning
Commission held on December 1, 1992.
`4r.
12561
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-548-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 654th Regular Meeting of the City
4101. Planning Commission held on December 1, 1992 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Landscape
Plan in connection with Petition 92-6-8-8 by Kamp-DiComo Associates,
P.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a new
clubhouse/banquet facility for the Italian American Club of Livonia on
the north side of Five Mile just east of I-275 in Section 18.
Mr. Miller: During the site plan approval for the Italian American Club the
landscape plan was approved. Part of the landscape plan that was
approved was that the existing trees in front were proposed to be
incorporated into the landscape plan and stay there. Between that
time and now they have been cut down and cleared so accordingly the
petitioner has submitted a new revised landscape plan.
Dan DiComo: (He presented the revised landscape plan) At the study session it
was asked that we go back to the club and ask that they upgrade the
size of the trees. What we have done since the last meeting is
upgrade all of the trees on the exterior edge.
Mr. Tent: The increase in size will be adhered to with the latest plans?
'410. Mr. DiComo: Yes.
Mr. Tent: So actually all the trees that were taken down in error, we have
compromised now and have a full set of trees to take care of the
error.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-549-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Revised
Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 92-6-8-8 by Kamp-DiComo
Associates, P.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a new clubhouse/banquet facility for the. Italian American Club
of Livonia on the north side of Five Mile just east of I-275 in Section
18 subject to the following condition:
1) That the partially revised Landscape Plan dated 12-9-92, as
revised, prepared by the Italian-American Club is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to and the landscaping shown on that Plan, as
well as the landscaping proposed for the balance of the subject
site previously approved, shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12562
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Letter from Robert
G. Kunkel requesting a one-year extension of Petition 91-12-8-22, which
received approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance
#543 to construct a commercial building on property located at the
41101r southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Newburgh Road.
Bob Kunkel, 36781 Curtis: I am the principal developer. It has taken about a year
of research to do the title study. We have been to approximately
30 different golf shops all over the country. We now have
everything in order and we are actually looking to break ground
this April.
Mr. Engebretson: You had a relatively innovative design in the interior of that
building. Are you staying with that?
Mr. Kunkel: Everything is identical. Everything is the same. Basically we
spent our time on displays, actual floor plan, fixtures. The
structural walls are all the same.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
i#1.2-550-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve a
one-year extension of Petition 91-12-8-22, which received approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 to construct a
commercial building on property located at the southeast corner of Eight
Mile Road and Newburgh Road subject to the following condition:
1) That the request by Robert G. Kunkel, in a letter dated 11/29/92,
for a one-year extension is hereby approved subject to all the same
conditions and requirements as set forth in the original
resolution.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Fandrei, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Cornell Sign Company requesting approval to erect one
ground sign on property located at 32406 Seven Mile Road in Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This is an elderly living development and it is zoned R-9. Under
the ordinance they are allowed one identification sign and they are
using a ground sign as an identification sign. The sign is
conforming.
Mark Johnson: I am with Cornell Sign Company. The sign is a ground sign and it
does meet the square footage, overall height and setback
requirements. It will be a non-illuminated sand-blasted redwood
sign. There will be no mercury vapor or front lighting whatsoever.
It is in keeping with the other locations for the Courtyard Manor.
Su., That is the reason for the color concept.
12563
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
'04s. #12-551-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company
requesting approval to erect one ground sign on property located at
32406 Seven Mile Road in Section 3 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the sign plan dated 12/1/92 prepared by Cornell Sign Company
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the site plan showing the location of the sign dated 12/1/92
prepared by Cornell Sign Company is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That the color rendering plan dated 12/8/92, prepared by Cornell
Sign Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 655th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on December 15, 1992 was adjourned at 11:56 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
*lar
Jams C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: crcTL 4.1
rte.
Jack Engebre son, Chairman /
jg