HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-07-17 11175
MINUTES OF THE 604th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Now-
On Tuesday, July 17, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 604th 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 25 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine* Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by
the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or
not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Vyhnalek introduced the new officers of the Planning Commission, which are:
Chairman, Jack Engebretson; Vice Chairman, Herman H. Kluver and Secretary, Brenda
Lee Fandrei.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
90-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #320-90, proposing to rezone property located south of Five
Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUFA to ML and R-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane could you give us the background on this petition that
is a City Planning Commission petition in response to the City Council
direction. For the benefit of those in the audience perhaps you
could review the development of events at this site?
Mr. Shane: This particular property, particularly the property zoned M-1 has
been the subject of some discussions over the last year or so
between the Planning Commission and the City Council with respect
to possibly rezoning the property and encouraging different uses
`r.
11176
than what is on the property, basically industrial. This
culminated in a Council resolution to the Planning Commission,
which directed them to look at this property and determine what the
best use and the best zoning district would be for the property,
not only the property zoned M-1 but also the property consisting of
``.- Lots 1, 2 and 3 of B. E. Taylor's Green Acres Subdivision, which
for the most part front on Five Mile Road. That particular
property is currently zoned RUFA. The two properties together are
owned by the same person. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are vacant. The M-1
portion has two industrial buildings with three industrial uses on
the property. The M-1 property is split in three parts. The
rear possibly one-half or so is vacant. The other portion is
encompassed by buildings and uses so the charge of the Planning
Commission was to hold a public hearing, this public hearing
tonight, to determine whether the current zoning is valid or
whether it should be changed to some other zoning district. The
hearing is being held in really two parts, one the RUFA property is
proposed to be rezoned to R-1, which is single family residential
district requiring lots of 60 foot wide by 120 foot deep and the
M-1 property is proposed to be rezoned to M-L or limited
manufacturing district, still manufacturing but the M-L is more
restrictive than the M-1 with respect that it does not permit
outdoor storage and has more limited number of permitted uses than
the M-1.
Mr. Engebretson: Isn't it true Mr. Shane that even if this property were to be
rezoned, the present users are not affected by the rezoning?
Mr. Shane: That is correct. The present users, if they would become
non-conforming under the M-L district would be legally
non-conforming because they existed presently and that would not
change. However, if they were non-conforming under the M-L
district and one of the users moved out, then the new user would
have to conform to the M-L district. That is the only difference.
Gary McCoulloch, 53000 Grand River, New Hudson: I am the property owner of both of
these parcels. I have been the owner of this property for about
three years and as the gentleman has told you there have been
numerous meetings and discussions on the M-1. There has been kind
of an agreement between myself, the buyers and the City Council
about the rezoning to M-L in that area. That is not why I am here
tonight. The reason I am here tonight, on the RUF portion, I would
like to ask the Commission to perhaps leave that parcel RUF until
there is a plan that is brought to the City to perhaps build on
that property in a multiple type atmosphere whether it be condos or
apartments or something of that nature. The other property owners
along Five Mile are also thinking along the same line that perhaps
doing something with the property and taking the old homes out of
there and making it into a multiple type atmosphere there. Turning
that into 1/2 acre parcels for single family dwellings, the
property wouldn't be able to be used hardly at all for that type of
atmosphere mainly because of the heavy traffic on Five Mile Road
and the excessive amount of traffic from the shopping center. I
don't believe you gentlemen or ladies would like to live next to
those two items in a single family dwelling. It would almost make
11177
the property worthless. That is pretty much the opinion of the
real estate company and a few other builders and contractors I have
talked to on this particular piece. My request is to leave it as
it is until a proposal is brought to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson: You are not speaking in opposition to the change of zoning of the
M-1 to M-L?
Mr. McCoulloch: No.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you the owner of that property as well?
Mr. McCoulloch: Yes I am. We feel the zoning in that area from the M-1 to the M-L
is acceptable, although the existing tenants or buyers of that
property are locked into the M-1 zoning, I don't really see where
the M-L will change anything. There is no outdoor storage there
now. There used to be. When I owned the property I had a
substantial number of trucks there and I have since gotten rid of
all the trucks. Ninety percent of the blight has been taken out of
there, which was pretty much dumped in my lap when I purchaed this
property. I purchased it from Jack Spanich, who was killed in a
plane crash, and the place was a dumping ground for gravel
companies. At the time I was leasing one of the buildings and I
wound up purchasing all the property and I spent about $20,000
cleaning up the mess that was left in my hands.
Mr. Morrow: Did I hear you say this was to split these into 1/2 acre lots?
Mr. McCoulloch: From my understanding that was the concensus that these lots along
Five Mile would wind up to be 1/2 acre residential lots.
* Mr. LaPine entered the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I mentioned that, the zoning before us tonight is
considerably below that. It is 60 ft. x 120 ft. , which would not
be construed as a half acre lot so there is more density built in.
Does that change your opinion at all?
Mr. McCoulloch: I don't think the density figure would change the opinion of the
value of the property of single family dwelling. I don't believe
anyone is going to want to spend the fair market value to put in a
single family dwelling whereas the property would probably be more
conducive to multiple of some sort. I realize the City Council
does not want any more commercial and I am not fighting for
commercial in any way, shape or form but there again I don't want a
white elephant stuck on my hands for the rest of my life either.
If I can sell the property and if it enhances the City, that is the
gateway to Livonia and what is there now really doesn't enhance the
City. I own the houses that are there and I don't feel that those
houses are what the City should be offering people coming into the
City with that main gateway. If it was turned into single family
dwellings, those houses would remain there forever.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to point out if this zoning were to take place, you
could develop this property either as single family homes with 60
foot lots or under the waiver use provision ordinance, you could
11178
put in, with a waiver use, single family cluster housing within
that particular zoning. The other point is if this zoning
occurred, it still wouldn't prevent you from coming back on your
own petition seeking the kind of zoning you may ultimately wish to
have there. This does not close out any of your options.
Mr. McCoulloch: My point of view is why tamper with it right now if there is
something else coming down the line.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand your point but sometimes things happen in stages.
Joseph Kappler, 15071 Flamingo: When they paved Five Mile Road they dumped all
that dirt and I am three feet below the level there and on top of
that if they built houses in there, that used to be a golf course,
and our water line is only a four inch main and it runs between two
and three and if they tear that up we are going to have to put in
new water lines and nobody wants to pay for it. If they tear all
that water line up, everybody is going to have to pay. That house
on Lot 6, when the line sprung a leak they made Schwartz pay for a
whole new water line to hook up on Five Mile. I am against having
that done unless whoever takes over pays for all the damages and
leaves enough room against my side so the water won't be running
down on my side. I am against that development.
Mr. Morrow: You understand we are just changing zoning. We are not breaking
ground. Any of your concerns would be something Engineering would
have to address. We shouldn't work a hardship on your property if
they develop it. I understand where you are coming from. You have
a legitimate concern but we are just studying zoning tonight. We
are not trying to develop the site. We are trying to find the best
use for that property.
8,4411.
Ken Sydor, 30508 Hoy: My understanding is they want to change to condominiums or
something, right?
Mr. Engebretson: No. Single family homes type of zoning.
Mr. Sydor: I guess it would take anyone to walk down Hoy Street and see they
are large lots. I am a young man and I moved here for that reason
and I have been interested in buying this lot (he pointed to the
lot on the map) for that reason.
Matt Collins, 15019 Flamingo: I am located on Lot 24, which is very near both
proposed zoning changes. I am here for several reasons and I am
going to split up my opinion on what is being proposed tonight.
First I would like to address the M-1 to ML proposed change. I
live right on the property line. I look across the fence every day
and I see this facility. For years I have seen the trucks that
have been stored on this facility. I have seen the scraggly
conditions that the property, until recently, has been maintained
in. I am willing to accept the change to ML but I have certain
conditions which I believe must be met in order for this change to
be accepted. First, there is a culvert at the back of that
property. It is very overgrown and there is a lot of trash in it.
I would like to see that completely cleaned up. I would like to
see some sort of a greenbelt put in against that property I am
11179
referring to (he pointed the area out on the map). Again, I would
like to see them create and maintain a greenbelt, a natural setting
that blocks our view but maintains a good look and would help
maintain the value of that property and my property, which is
adjacent to that property. Next, I would like to see the owner,
who is U. S. Trailer, voluntarily cease to store any kind of semi's
or RV vehicles of any kind. I understand he does have a license
and approval to do that. It had been granted some time in the
past. It can be ended if he so choses. Again, I believe he would
have to voluntarily do that. I am frankly very tired of looking at
the open ends of trailers that are flooded with junk, netting, etc.
It is not a pleasant sight to look at. When I first moved in I
planted a dozen spruce trees at the back of the property but it
will be ten years before those come into affect. It would be very
much appreciated on the part of myself and other residents in this
area if you are going to approve this change that you do so with
these conditions and see that they are enforced. Lastly, I do know
one of the buildings that is now used, I believe it is a boat
trailer manufacturing company. I would just like to insure that no
matter who is in there that there are no hazardous chemicals stored
or used in those facilities. I would not like to be the recipient
of any kind of health problem as a result of chemicals being stored
there. I guess under those conditions I am willing to accept the
change from M-1 to ML but something must be done or I won't accept
it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, in what zoning would the barbed wire be allowed?
Mr. Shane: It is allowed in certain instances in M-1, in industrial instances.
Mrs. Fandrei: In ML would it be allowed?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Collins, we share your concerns. What is happening here before
us now is we are contemplating a zoning change which would allow
the ML district but all those things you have called to our
attention are things we would be very much concerned about.
Whoever the developer would be would have to come before us with
their site plan and we would certainly insist on the greenbelting
and improvements, etc. If the zoning is to be approved and they
come before us with the site plan, all those things you have been
concerned about, we are concerned about and will address ourselves
to those concerns.
Mr. Collins: I appreciate that very much. I wanted to make sure it was on the
record tonight. I realize there are some other factors. There are
a lot of behind the scenes discussions going on and these changes
are necessary for the property to be sold at some point so it is
important that these things be publicly discussed and on the
record.
Mr. McCann: I want you to understand before we go on with this petition
tonight, this petition is by the Planning Commission ourselves
here, this is not something the owner of the property is doing.
11180
What we are doing is taking areas of the City of Livonia, this one
in particular, and looking to see if the zoning in this particular
area is any longer appropriate. It may have been 30 years ago when
it was set but today it is in a residential area so we are
downgrading it. We cannot put any restrictions on the owners as
'Nor far as cleaning it up. If he comes back, as Mr. Tent said, with a
site plan, at that point when he wants to redo the area we might be
able to put some restrictions as to type of greenbelt, etc.
Mr. Collins: Then reject the change.
Mr. McCann: It is our change. What we are trying to do, and that is what I am
trying to explain to you right now, is we are downgrading it. We
are going to ML, which is a lighter industrial area than M-1.
Right now we can put all types of industrial in there without
coming to anybody in the City. If we reduce it to ML, it limits
the type of industrial things that he can put in there and that is
what we are trying to do. We are taking the area above and
changing it from industrial to residential. We are downgrading it
as far as we think we can. I think it is in the City's and your
interest to lower it as much as we can at this point and it is not
a question of doing it for him.
Mr. Collins: Again, this is a public hearing and I have the opportunity to make
everyone here aware of those things. There will be other hearings
as well?
Mr. McCann: If the property owner comes back and wants to do something with the
property, yes then there will be more hearings.
r.. Mr. Collins: I would like to address the proposal to go from RUFA to R-1.
As my neighbor said, the lots in Green Acres are 1/2 acre single
dwelling homes. As was mentioned, the proposal is to go to 60 ft.
x 120 ft. lots. That is totally out of character with the other
homes in our neighborhood and I guess I am opposed to creating the
change and specifying 60 x 120 because now we are jamming homes in
nearby which could adversely affect our property value. Also, the
second reason is right now that lot is the only buffer between our
neighborhood and the shopping center. What that means to me is
everyday the owners of the shopping center invite probably 1,000
total strangers to come into their property to shop. Every so
often one of those strangers can come through this lot and come
into our neighborhood and potentially do damage, breaking and
entering, etc. It has happened in the past. For this reason our
neighborhood has gotten together and generated a petition. It has
been signed by about 90% of the homeowners. This is the area
bordered by Hoy, Flamingo, Lyndon and Henry Ruff. It consists of
about 100 homes. Basically, they are in this petition, which I am
prepared to present to you for your understanding, requesting that
the owners of the shopping center install a fence from the edge of
their property line and actually it would run along the road from
Lot 22 all the way to Five Mile Road to keep their visitors from
entering into our property through that unauthorized non-public
access. We have streets and we have sidewalks that people can
enter into our neighborhood. That is fine but the only reason that
access was created was because of the creation of the shopping
11181
center and this is something else that we will be taking to the
City Council. For this reason, for the fact they are very small
lots and not characteristic of our neighborhood, I am opposed and
most of my neighbors are opposed to the change from RUFA to R-l.
Nur, Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Collins a couple of points before you leave. Regarding the
change from M-1 to ML, I think you can sense in a way that we share
a lot of your concerns about some of the undesirable aspects of
having M-1 in an area that is completely surrounded by residential.
We are trying to lighten that up for the benefit of the residential
neighbors. The point is we cannot condition zoning. We can't do
that even if we wanted to. Even though we understand your point,
we can't do it. Perhaps, if you are concerned about clutter, if
you feel there is a misuse of that property and feel you have a
valid complaint, then you should contact our Inspection Department
and have them make a determination.
Mr. Collins: I believe they have been contacted.
Mr. Engebretson: They are the enforcement arm of the City. The other comment I
would like is relative to the residential zoning. The owner of the
property expressed concern about building a $300,000 house on 1/2
acre of land, which presently exists there. I disagree with him
that those kinds of houses can't be built on mile roads. All you
have to do is look up at Deer Creek at Eight Mile Road right down
the street from a major shopping center on a mile road and that
class of house there and at Seven Mile and Newburgh, the same
thing. However, there are two sides to this and we are not talking
about breaking any ground as Mr. Morrow said. We are talking about
the planning and development of that little section of the City in
a proper manner for the benefit of the residential neighbors. It
is a multi phase process that takes place over a long period of
time.
Mr. Collins: I understand that. At each step I will propose the same
objections. We would like to feel our neighborhood ultimately
would be insulated with a permanent barrier from the shopping
center. Anything that is done with that lot to develop it could
potentially un-insulate it.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a fact of life Mr. Collins even if it were a $300,000
house there, your nightmare becomes reality. The only alternative,
it appears to me, that would guarantee you your privacy and
security is for you and your neighbors to buy that property and
provide the kind of barriers that you wish.
Robert Pollock, 30505 Hoy: The M-1 to ML sounds like a good idea to me with
stronger limitations. I am all for that. I agree with this last
person about the size of the lots. I don't know if this is going
to set with 60 x 120 by going to this R-1. I would like to see
more of a continuation of the lots that follow up Flamingo and if
they could have access from Spanich Court and then just continue
the lot sizes of 28 through 22 because as he has said property
values will be affected and there is no reason $100,000 homes can't
be built. We are not asking for $300,000 homes.
11182
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Pollock you make a good point. I would like to ask Mr. Shane
if he could give us some idea of how R-1 lots on Spanich Court
would compare to Lots 22 through 28.
Mr. Shane: Lots 22 through 28 are 1/2 acre lots. They are about 93 feet wide
`'r► by 272 feet deep and R-1 lots are 60 foot wide. In this case a
little more than 120 foot deep, possibly 140 feet. That would be
considerably smaller than what Lot 22, etc. would be.
Mr. Pollock: I would think that people would like this area because of what
is around it. I would think people would like a little more
property.
Mr. McCann: One other problem you could have, you can't have the same size lot
that you have for 22 through 28 because you have to have a road and
that is going to take up quite a bit of the space. The other thing
is you have to consider the people who are going to do it are
either going to be backed up to the mall itself so their backyard
will be facing the mall or the road side would be on the mall so it
may benefit the rest of the area to have some type of housing in
there which would separate you from the mall area and would work as
a buffer. I think the idea behind the original petition was to try
to put some type of buffer type housing development between it. We
didn't want to go to multi-housing. We felt single family was more
appropriate to the area but to do it on a level where people were
willing to participate because their house would face into the mall
or their backyard is going to be into the mall saving enough room
to have a street there and still build a reasonable size three
bedroom home for families.
Mr. Pollock: Is Spanich Court available as an access route?
Mr. McCann: That is what the developer would have to do.
Glen Jackson: I live on Lot 32 at the corner of Hoy and Flamingo. What I would
like to address, presently I guess in the Spanich Court area there
is a road there now that is showing on the side of the mall, which
really is Lot 1. Lot 1 was residential and, as I understand it,
when the zoning was first proposed to us before the mall went, and
we all approved that, we thought it was a good idea, what happened
there must have been a revision that we were not aware of, as far
as the neighborhood, of putting this road in. A couple of things
have happened there. First of all, we do have access into the
community, which Mr. Collins has also mentioned. That has been a
problem. Mr. Collins mentioned there was a break-in at his home.
Mr. Kappler chased off some young people. There was a police
report written and they did some vandalism over by Merri-Bowl.
That is why the petition was signed in our area, just to give you a
little background. I guess my concern is, if that property is
developed, in my opinion if we are going to continue that, we ought
to continue the large lot size. All of these homes will be facing
the shopping center. If we don't do that and it goes to something
else, obviously we are concerned. We would like to have a barrier
put up at Five Mile like Mr. Collins mentioned, just to keep the
people from walking through the neighborhood and having a problem.
My concern also is that we maintain the size of the property.
11183
Mr. Morrow: I would like to make a comment. As far as some of the neighbors
talking about leaving the RUFA classification alone, as Mr.
McCoulloch indicated, leave it in that zoning until someone comes
forward with a petition and then let them share with us how he
wants to develop it. I support that line of reasoning.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to speak against the proposed rezoning. When you look
at that map there, when you are talking about changing it from M-1
to ML, which is surrounded by residential, I think the
recommendation we originally made to Council, rezoning the property
to all R-1, was the right recommendation. I think if you look at
the map, the whole area should be single family homes. We are not
hurting the owner of that property. When he decides to sell the
property, the new owner would be aware the property is no longer
M-1 or ML and he would have to develop that as residential. I
think we are being scared off here because of 1959, a lawsuit the
City lost. I think the situation has changed. We had Best Block
there and the City spent a lot of money and a lot of work to get
rid of them so we could clean up the area. Now we have one bad
area left there and in my way of thinking, I think some real good
zoning for there would be R-1 and I think we should back off. If
it means we have to go to court, we could lose again but at least I
think we are sticking to our guns and saying this is a residential
neighborhood, why have ML or M-1? Therefore, I would urge my
fellow Commissioners to vote against this.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-1-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, itrei,NAN
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #320-90, proposing to rezone property located south
of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUFA to ML and R-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-4-1-11 be approved with respect to the M-1 zoning change to
ML for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed ML district prohibits outside storage of
equipment and material.
2) That the uses permitted in the proposed ML district are fewer
and more restrictive than in the existing M-1 district.
3) That the uses permitted in the proposed ML district are more
compatible to the adjoining residential uses in the area.
and that Petition 90-4-1-11 be denied with respect to the RUFA zoning
change to R-1 for the following reasons:
1) That the R-1 district would reduce lot sizes which would be
incompatible with the existing residential lots in the area.
11184
2) That the lots in the existing RUF district can be developed as
currently platted.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Gniewek, Engebretson, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to move that this petition be tabled to the study
meeting of August 21 because obviously some very important points
were made tonight at this public hearing. As changes occur in the
City we can see that zoning has an impact. Very obviously the M-1
and ML is ill placed where it presently is. To continue with that
type of zoning I feel would place a hardship. Therefore, I would
like to have this readdressed at the study meeting of August 21.
Mr. McCann: Prior to tabling this motion, we have a council resolution to ask
us to either approve or deny a resolution going forward from M-1 to
ML. They have already asked a recommendation from us as to what it
should be. At this point we are coming back from a resolution from
them whether it should be changed from M-1 to ML. We can always
come again with a resolution to reduce it further but I think we
have to act on their resolution whether we want to accept ML or
Saw not. I don't think, in my opinion, we have a choice as to come
back to them and say we are denying yours but approving our own
idea again of going back to R-1. We have already made that
recommendation to Council and they have not approved it. They have
asked us to act on an ML not R-1. I may be wrong.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann, I think the point is, while Mr. Kluver can speak for
himself, I think he raises a point that a lot of information was
presented here tonight that merits additional consideration and I
don't think the Council would fault us for moving in a deliberate
way.
Mr. McCann: What I am asking, through the chair to the staff, whether we can
come back when they have requested us to look at it changing from
M-1 to ML when we have already recommended R-1 to come back and
deny their request. I don't know if we have a choice. I think
that was what his intent was to look at changing it back to R-1.
Mr. Shane: You always have to remember that Planning Commission resolutions
are not binding. It is a recommendation and if you chose to
recommend not to rezone, that is the recommendation that goes
forward to City Council. Obviously, you can table it at any time
for more discussion but you have to take some action on the
petition. It could be denying or approving or some combination.
'tier
11185
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-396-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
New— Council Resolution #320-90, proposing to rezone property located south
of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUFA to ML and R-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-4-1-11
until the Study Meeting to be conducted on August 21, 1990.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The Commission took this opportunity to adopt a resolution honoring William LaPine
for his service to the City in the last year as Chairman of the Planning
Commission.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, WILLIAM LaPINE has diligently served as Chairman of the City
Planning Commission for one year and has unselfishly given of his time
and talents to help Livonia formulate development policies and guide its
growth and development in an orderly manner; and
WHEREAS,in the course of such service he has exerted leadership and set
an example by his extreme dedication to the formulation of a sound
planning program; and
WHEREAS, he has withstood public pressure to make unbiased judgments for
the betterment of the entire city; and
WHEREAS, his willingness to participate and give freely of his time for
all worthwhile causes relating to the improvement of our City is an
example for all public officials and public servants,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Livonia Planning
Commission and Planning Director take this means to express their
sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to WILLIAM LaPINE for a job
well done.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-5-2-13 by St. Mary Hospital requesting waiver use approval to
construct a nursing care center/home for the aged on property located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
11186
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this petition. We have also received a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following
recommendations are submitted for our consideration: 1. The
"regular" parking spaces should be ten feet wide instead of the 9
feet shown. 2. Consider a redesign of the drive coming from the
hospital. Instead of a 120 degree or so turn onto the north-south
drive, it is suggested a 90 degree turn be designed and an island
placed to separate the northbound and southbound movements. 3.
Install a sidewalk along the Five Mile Road frontage. I might add
that all of those matters they pointed out have been corrected.
Also in our file is a letter from the Division of Fire stating they
have no objection to this proposal. They state this decision is
contingent upon an approved water supply with on site hydrants with
a minimum water flow of 2,000 GPM's. They further state the
southwest parking deadend does not appear to be an adequate turn
around for emergency equipment in an event of an emergency. To
alleviate this problem, consideration should be given to a possible
extension to the area. Again, I would like to point out that the
problem with the emergency turnaround has also been corrected.
Also in our file is a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have
no objections to this petition. Lastly, we have received a letter
from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found. Lastly, we have received a letter from
Detroit Edison stating their company has no objections to this
petition.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner to come up and tell us what
you have in mind.
Joe Hoadley: I am with Hobbs & Black Associates. We are the architects
designing this facility. I have a series of boards which we will
walk through so you can see the locations of the buildings and
how the decisions came about and how they impacted the site plan
that we are proposing. (Mr. Hoadley presented his plans) The
proposal is to develop a 54,000 square foot nursing home on the
19.9 acres that has been designated for the site. As per the
Planning Commission request from the public hearing on the
rezoning, the rezoning has been stopped at the Bakewell Drain and
the rezoning for the petition is 14.9 acres. It is a licensed
facility by the Michigan Department of Public Health and it is
developed under the Fire Marshal as well as the City rules in terms
of building codes and fire codes by the State of Michigan.
The building location has been established 770 feet back from the
center line of Five Mile Road. (He pointed it out on the map) The
location of the building was impacted by the existing distance
between Five Mile Road and St. Mary Hospital as well as the
location of the drainage pattern north and south as well as the
designated Bakewell Drain. It is also impacted by an on site sewer
service from Ladywood High School across the site to alleviate
problems they had in the past. Therefore, the nursing home was
established back as far as it could to avoid all those parameters.
`'u11.
11187
The building is designed as a single story building. There are
peak roofs on portions of the building and flat roofs on other
portions of the building. It is a brick building. Its function
within the building has had a great impact on the site. There are
411„ primarily two uses for the home. A home for the aged with 29 beds
and a nursing home use with 91 beds. Each of those are separate
use identities within the building. The people who live in the
home for the aged, for example, they will tell you flat out they do
not live in a nursing home so it has impacted our design in that we
have separate entries for both of those facilities so that their
families and residents are as comfortable as they can be living in
this type of a situation.
We have two accesses to the site. One off Five Mile which is a
public access. We also have an additional access off the service
drive to get trucks and employee vehicles coming in. The parking
that we have proposed follows along the same lines. There is a
staff lot for primarily the nursing staff and the maintenance
staff. There is an administrative and nursing home lot which will
park the cars of a few administrators and executives as well as
nursing home visitors and there is an additional parking lot for
the home of the aged visitors. This was also done so we would have
a large 80 car parking lot. It is distributed as different events
happen. For the most part the lots will be empty with the
exception of the staff lots. (He showed a plan of the building
itself).
Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned the color of brick changes as you go around. What
color shading were you considering for the brick?
Nom. Mr. Hoadley: They are very subtle changes going into the reds and browns just
very earth tones, very subtle changes to give it a different flavor
rather than one big building. We are trying to de-institutionalize
a residential building.
Mr. Tent: First of all I am very pleased. I think this is a great project.
It is something we need. There has been a lot of horror stories
about nursing homes. I want to ask you some questions about it
because this really is a request for a waiver to construct the
nursing home. What would the ratio be of staff to the residents?
The other part of the question would be would these be student
nurses or minimum type people that would provide services to the
residents?
Mr. Hoadley: There are a whole series of level of people from nurses aides right
up to RN's. RN's would have to be on the floor at all times.
Mr. Tent: How many staff people?
Mr. Hoadley: There are 30 on the day shift.
Mr. Tent: These are all professional people?
Mr. Hoadley: Nurses and nurses aides.
fir. Mr. Tent: We hear about someone below minimum wages working in some of those
places and what has been happening to the patients. I am concerned
about that.
11188
Mr. Hoadley: Those reports are similar to a lot of those things. They represent
a very small percentage of nursing homes.
Mr. Tent: Well I care. I am concerned about it. The medical attention for
the residents, will that be provided by St. Mary Hospital? How
will that be handled.
Sister Renetta, Executive Vice President of St. Mary Hospital: I am the liaison
person for this nursing home. First of all I wish to assure you
that we will meet all of the requirements of the Michigan
Department of Public Health for the nursing care. We have
requirements and I assure you we will care as much for the patients
that are in those homes as we care for the patients in the
hospital. In response to your other question, we will have a
medical director in charge of the nursing home and we will assure
you also we will have the services of the hospital available to the
patients there. The staff driveway is also very close to the
emergency room so if necessary we will transport patients from the
nursing home directly to the emergency room. Does that satisfy
you?
Mr. Tent: Thank you.
Mr. Engebretson: Would this facility be open to the general public or is it for
use by your order?
Sister Renetta: The facility will be open to the general public. We do have our
own nursing home for our order.
Mr. Engebretson: It looks like a great plan.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-5-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
##7-397-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July
17, 1990 on Petition 90-5-2-13 by St. Mary Hospital requesting waiver
use approval to construct a nursing care center/home for the aged on
property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh
and Levan Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
90-5-2-13 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-100 dated 7-12-90, as
revised, prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates, Inc. , Architects,
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 5-1-90
prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 5-10-90 prepared by
Hobbs & Black Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby
`rw 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.
11189
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 9.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-16 by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, P.C. requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition to the existing Christ Our Savior
Lutheran Church located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Lyndon Avenue and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Bakewell 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
the plan meets with the approval of the Engineering Department but
it is recommended that the plan be reviewed by the Wayne County
Office of Public Services relative to the relocation of the
existing drive approach along Farmington Road. Specifically, the
new drive approach location should be reviewed by the County with
respect to the left turn movements to Summers Avenue located on the
east side of Farmington Road. We also have in our file a letter
from the Traffic Bureau stating this proposal is acceptable as
submitted. We have also received a letter from the Division of
Fire stating their office has no objections to this proposal.
We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has
no objections to the proposal. From Detroit Edison we have a
letter stating they have no objections to this petition.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, what was the first one about Summers Avenue?
Mr. Shane: If you recall, the plan proposes to relocate the existing drive
south and it does not line up with Summers Avenue, which is the
street opposite the church on the other side of Farmington Road and
the comment is that there could be conflicts of persons turning
left from southbound Farmington Road into Summers and from
northbound Farmington Road into the church property. They were
just suggesting that Wayne County should review that. Obviously
they would have to because this is a Wayne County road.
`\r
11190
Mr. Vyhnalek: I thought our notes said Wayne County approved this driveway.
Mr. Shane: According to the petitioner they have reviewed this driveway and
have approved it but he can speak for himself.
yr..
Stuart McCallum, Merritt McCallum Cieslak, Architects of Farmington: The Wayne
County Road Commission has reviewed the site plan. The only
comments they had were a few details regarding construction of the
new approach, sidewalk thickness, etc. There was no concern
regarding the relationship to Summers. As Mr. Shane has pointed
out every City department seems to be in agreement, only the
comment regarding the Wayne County Road Commission, which we have
complied with. The addition is going to be basically to the east
and north corner of the existing building. Everything is within
the setback requirements, etc. The general architecture will
conform with the present building. I believe you all have seen a
copy of the site plan. It is all in keeping with the present
structure. The parking is in excess of the actual requirements for
the seating we are providing at this point. There are no
deficiencies there. All in all we are totally complying with the
City of Livonia requirements.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is zoned what right now?
Mr. Shane: It is zoned R-2.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the setback?
Mr. Shane: The setback from Farmington Road is 30 feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: And the RE is what?
Mr. Shane: It is at least 100 feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That church is going to stick out closer to Farmington Road than
any other building.
Mr. Merritt: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: What is the existing church setback now?
Mr. Merritt: I believe it is 120 plus feet.
Mr. LaPine: Part of this addition is going in front of the church.
Mr. Merritt: Yes closer to Farmington Road.
Mr. LaPine: Can you explain to me why that has to happen. Why can't we do all
the additions to the rear? When I went over to look at the site
there seems to be plenty of room at the rear.
Mr. Merritt: Not really when you consider the parking requirements and the
general orientation of the present building as it relates to the
internal arrangements with the new additions. The addition almost
has to go to the front.
\..
11191
Mr. LaPine: Were you the original architect?
Mr. Merritt: Yes we were.
s,., Mr. LaPine: At the time you built the church the setback was the same
requirement as required now. Why, at that time, did you decide to
set it back 100 feet?
Mr. Merritt: Even architects have a hard time imagining how much growth will
take place in some churches and this has been an exceptional growth
situation which has necessitated filling up the lot much more than
anyone could have anticipated.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any ground where we can at least hold it back instead of
30 feet to possibly 50 feet?
Mr. Merritt: We are going to that point because we have to because of the
anticipated future requirements.
Mr. LaPine: What is the size of the congregation today?
Mr. Merritt: Pastor Worth could give us a little more accurate definition of
that.
Pastor Worth: 1200.
Mr. LaPine: You have 1200 members of your church. The sanctuary is going to
hold 508 people?
Pastor Worth: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: So you will have two services each Sunday? I have a problem. I
Gat on another Commission when Wards Presbyterian Church kept
coming in to us and growing and growing and they outgrew that site
so today it is so overbuilt it is unbelievable. I don't want to
see that same situation happen here on Farmington Road and that
worries me. Somewhere down the line I can see you have 1200
members, you may go to 1500 members and have to increase your
sanctuary that much larger. To me you are beginning to overbuild
this parcel. The other problem I have, I don't like it being that
close to Farmington Road. I would like to see it stay back at
least 50 feet.
Mr. Merritt: I don't think there is a great deal of available expansion after
this project is completed. Perhaps a couple of classrooms but no
major expansion. The site is limiting in this respect.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a multi purpose room in this church?
Mr. Merritt: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: What if you are having something there where all your congregation
is invited? You have 1200 members. Say 500, 700, 800 show up.
Where are they going to park?
11192
Mr. Merritt: We are equipped to handle the 500 at this point. We have a safety
valve to add some additional parking to accommodate some additional
cars should the situation arise. At this point we are estimating
the seating to be 508 and we are providing three seats per car
space, which is in conformance with the code.
Mr. LaPine: How large is your multi purpose room? How many people can you
accomodate?
Mr. Merritt: About 400.
Mr. Gniewek: A question to Mr. Shane. H, what is the actual distance from the
front of the church to the street as far as the distance?
Mr. Shane: Thirty feet to the sidewalk and the sidewalk is 6 feet and there is
approximately 15 feet between there and the pavement so probably
about 50 feet.
Mr. Gniewek: The appearance of that site will be a lot deeper. This is only a
30 foot setback technically. The appearance of this particular
setback will be more like 50 feet.
Mr. Kluver: A question to the petitioner and the architect. With this addition
that you are adding on and building a new sanctuary and obviously
we have included your site plan in here, with this facility are you
adding any type of unique mechanical equipment? Will this facility
be air conditioned? Will there be any type of mechanical equipment
that will be added to that particular structure?
Mr. Merritt: Yes there will be some mechanical equipment. (Mr. Merritt pointed
out on the site plan where it would be located. ) We will make
every attempt to screen it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-398-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-16 by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, P.C. requesting
waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing Christ Our
Savior Lutheran Church located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Lyndon Avenue and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-6-2-16 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated 7-2-90, as revised,
prepared by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan is hereby
11193
approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
Nom.
3) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 5-30-90 prepared by Merritt
McCallum Cieslak, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
4) That any and all rooftop mechanical equipment be properly screened
from view.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 4.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#1543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
`'fir.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-17 by Jack York requesting waiver use approval to operate a
bakery with customer seating in the Stark Plaza Shopping Center located
on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 33.
Mr. Bakewell 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 Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has
no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter
from the Division of Fire stating they have no objections to this
proposal. The Traffic Bureau has sent a letter stating the
proposal is acceptable as submitted. We have received a letter
from the Engineering Department stating their department has no
objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter
from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the petitioner.
Jack York, 14723 Park: We would like to open a bakery there. It will be a
combination bakery and donut shop type of thing. We are only
'Now going to be serving confectionery items. Seating is important. A
11194
lot of the business is going to be walk in but we expect to obtain
a lot of our customers for a seating type of arrangement.
Mr. Tent: Mr. York, I recognize there is a need for your facility but do you
really mean you are not going to come back at a later date and say
I have to sell pizzas here to make it work and I have to sell hot
dogs and yogurt and things like that?
Mr. York: We can't. We are strictly a bakery.
Mr. Tent: I realize that but other petitioners say they have a hardship and
they can't exist.
Mr. York: Our plan originally has been to go with just a confectionery store.
Mr. Gniewek: The baked goods that are provided are they baked on site or will
they be brought in from another area?
Mr. York: We will be doing the baking.
Mr. Gniewek: It will be homemade and there will be no other outside contracting
for certain types of items like candy, etc?
Mr. York: Exactly.
Mr. Gniewek: Because confectionery to me means not only baked goods, it means
candy and other sweet type things.
Mr. York: Cakes, pies, donuts.
Mr. Gniewek: I didn't want to see you with a Lady Godiva outlet there, etc.
Mr. Morrow: Under the ordinance is he allowed any seats in this?
Mr. Shane: Without the waiver use he would be allowed no seats but under the
definition of a restaurant with 12 seats he is actually technically
known as a carry-out restaurant, but it takes a waiver use to do
that.
Mr. Morrow: He is not allowed any seats now?
Mr. Shane: He is not allowed any now.
Mr. Engebretson: With the waiver use he is.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. York, is the Senate Coney Island open in the morning for
breakfast?
Mr. York: Yes it is.
Mr. LaPine: I assume you can go in there and get coffee and donuts.
Mr. York: They have pastries. I am not so sure about donuts.
Mr. LaPine: The primary thing the people would be using to sit down would be
`"` for coffee and donuts?
11195
Mr. York: Yes there will be donuts available and pies and cakes also.
Mr. LaPine: How much of your business do you think is going to be sit down?
v.. Mr. York: The problem isn't how much. A big portion obviously in the morning
is the donut shop. That is going to draw a lot of people. We feel
drawing the people in and having the seating available would bring
them back later.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have a counter?
Mr. York: It is a counter. There was a plan submitted that showed that.
Mr. LaPine: I think Mr. Gniewek asked the question but will all your baking be
done on the premises?
Mr. York: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like you to define the word confectionery as you
understand it. As Mr. Gniewek pointed out it does have some
different interpretation and rather than telling us what products
you aren't planning to serve, would you share with us more
precisely what products you do intend to serve?
Mr. York: Cakes, pies, donuts, cookies, bread and bagels.
Mr. Engebretson: No hot dogs or chili?
Mr. York: No.
**11' Mr. Vyhnalek: You are not going to sell milk or pepsi?
Mr. York: We have to sell beverages.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I mean for carry out, like a six-pack of pepsi or a gallon of milk?
Mr. York: No. We will probably have a small display counter for pints of
milk.
Mr. LaPine: Do you presently have a bakery?
Mr. York: No.
Mr. LaPine: Have you been in the bakery business?
Mr. York: My sister, her husband and I, we are all three going in business
together and they have been in the bakery business for 20 years.
Mr. LaPine: This is something new to you. Do they now have a bakery in some
other location?
Mr. York: No.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-17 closed.
soft.
11196
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
##7-399-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-17 by Jack York requesting waiver use approval
to operate a bakery with customer seating in the Stark Plaza Shopping
Center located on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-6-2-17 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the number of customer seats shall be limited to 12.
2) That the type of food served shall be limited to confectionery
products only.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-18 by Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to expand
the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies on
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt
Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane would you give us some background on this waiver use
request and how it came about and what correspondence, if any, we
may have in the file.
Mr. Shane: The next two items on your agenda will also be for Kmart or Kmart
owned operations. This came as a result of a petition at Seven
Mile Road and Farmington that Kmart had to redo some elevations on
their site and going back in time, it was discovered there was a
condition of approval when that Kmart was built there would be no
outdoor sales of any kinds of material. Based on that the City
Council adopted a resolution requesting the Ordinance Enforcement
"Iftw Division to look into that particular condition. However, this
11197
particular Kmart did petition later to have an outdoor sales area
approved on the east side of their building as did the Seven Mile
Road store later on. However, in all instances both Kmarts, as
well as Builders Square, their outdoor sales have expanded over and
above what was originally approved. It is that expansion which is
the subject of this petition, particularly this one, the Plymouth
Road Kmart facility. The expansion is along the walkway in front
of the building and also adjacent to the approved outdoor sales
area on the east side. After the Ordinance Enforcement Division
received that resolution they did submit some violation notices to
Kmart who then responded to the violation notices by filing waiver
use petitions to try and correct the problem. That is why this is
before us.
With respect to the correspondence, 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 Detroit
Edison stating they have no objection to this petition. Finally,
today we received a letter from the petitioner which reads as
follows:
"It was a pleasure to meet with you on July 12, 1990. This letter
confirms our conversation.
"With regard to the referenced stores in Livonia, K mart will limit
its outdoor sales area pursuant to the Waiver Use to the portions
of their premises reflected in the Petition and will, in addition,
reduce the requested sidewalk sales area to leave at least eight
feet of unobstructed space.
''rr. "Pursuant to the Waiver Use, only plants and garden supplies will
be sold from the outdoor sales area and the sale of patio stones
will be restricted to areas adjacent to the side of the buildings.
"Finally, K mart will limit outdoor plant sales pursuant to the
Waiver Use to the periods from April 1 to July 15 and September 1
to October 1.
Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to meeting with the
Planning Commission on Tuesday night." This letter was signed by
Robert A. LaBelle and he is the attorney for Kmart.
Mr. McCann: As I was listening to you H, did the letter mean to you they were
going to limit all outside sales to flowers and that type of items
at the front of the store as well?
Mr. Shane: Yes, it actually lists that on areas adjacent to the front of the
building, it will be used only for plants and garden supplies.
Mr. McCann: That is only from April 1st to July 15th?
Mr. Shane: April 1 to July 15 and September 1 to October 1. Patio stones will
be limited to the side of the building in addition to the things
that they do there now.
11198
Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment. You know the front of our shopping
centers are beginning to look like perpetual garage sales and this
is certainly in contrast to what we were attempting to do. When
developers come before the Planning Commission and Council we have
`r.• upgraded them. In other words we required landscaping and
planting, etc. We give them a large enough building which they
requested to kind of house the materials they want and now
throughout the City it looks like a continuous garage sale. They
are not only selling plants and flowers but machinery, equipment,
etc. While I appreciate the letter they sent to our staff in which
it was indicated they would restrict their particular sales to
strictly flowers and plants and vegetables, I really don't go for
the fertilizer in the bags because those things break up and they
slide all around the front of the building. I am concerned about
the gravel. I am concerned about the sand. I am concerned about
the building boards. They say they are going to locate them to the
sides. If I were to support this petition I would go along with
the fact they could limit their displays to flowers, vegetables and
potted shrubs. I have been to these areas where these bags of
fertilizer have been out there for 7 to 8 months and have been
broken open. I feel that should be housed behind their fence where
their building blocks are and all the building material and up
front they can bring out their flowers and their vegetables. That
is my comment. I am concerned about the City and I want to see it
go ahead. I am involved in the beautification program.
Mr. Gniewek: H, are there any Zoning Board of Appeals petitions that would have
to be filed at this point by allowing this waiver use at this
point?
`'r•. Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner come forward and tell us what you have in
mind?
Robert LaBelle, 15940 Auburndale: I represent Kmart and Builders Square and if I
can take this opportunity, if this is the proper method of doing
so, I think it would be proper to call the other two petitions as
well. They all have similar circumstances behind them. They might
as well all be considered at the same time.
Mr. McCann: I think we want to take Builders Square separately.
Mr. Engebretson: You can speak to the two Kmarts. We will vote on them
separately.
Mr. LaBelle: That is fine. I have with me the managers or manager representa-
tives of each of the stores we are talking about. We will deal
first with the two Kmarts. I have with me Mr. Kabala, Mr. Shannon
and Mr. Konkowski, respectively from the two Kmarts and Builders
Square. The petition here is seeking to do something which has
been done for some time period at a number of Kmarts across the
United States and particularly here in Michigan. It responds to a
seasonal demand and that is why it is done outdoors as opposed to
inside. It responds to the fact that during the early spring
11199
months a large number of persons want to buy that type of plants
and garden supply material, which at no other time period do they
want to buy. As a result, it is not reasonable to put them inside.
Consequently, it tends to be done outdoors.
'`r.
Another reason why it is done outdoors is because of the nature of
the things that are being sold, plants and other types of materials
that need sunlight and air. Finally and probably most important is
the demand by the citizens of the Livonia is very acute. They wish
to have this type of display available to them. Kmart's sales from
the garden shop must quadruple or more from each store during that
time period. I think this petition is limited enough in its scope,
duration and size to not impinge upon the reasons why outdoor sales
in general are not permitted.
I understand Mr. Tent's concerns about the fact that there are
supplies that could be sold in other places "garage sales" being
done on outside locations. I think you will note from each of
these Kmart locations that what is being sold out there are plants
and garden supplies which we are more than willing to limit
ourselves to. Also, if you will remember from the letter that I
wrote, the sidewalk sales would be limited to potted plants,
shrubs, etc. along the sidewalk and only to the side in an area
that almost never sees parking by any customers.
If I could speak to the commission about the dirt and fertilizer.
Those types of things are items which again, like the rest of the
items, have a seasonal demand. They are specific to that time
period. In fact, they may be more specific than the plants because
of their need to be done before the plants. Consequently, you
sw cannot house enough of that material within the garden shop to meet
the demand. It is the type of thing the citizens of Livonia are
seeking to have and to be available to them. That type of display
can be and has been in the past maintained well. We are more than
willing to make sure that would be maintained well in the future.
I would just like to point out a couple of things in terms of the
size and the width of the sales area. The sidewalks would always
maintain an 8 foot minimum sidewalk space available for persons to
walk. I understand from the Planning Commission's pre-meeting
before this that they would have preferred that these displays be
from the wall out and then leave 8 feet beyond that. That is fine
with Kmart to do that but I would propose that it might be better
off to have displays on both sides of the sidewalks and leave the 8
feet in the middle. My reasoning for this is the fact that other
communities have, in fact, required that be done here in Michigan
for the reason that it is safer for the customers. It keeps them
in between and on the sidewalks rather than the driveway in front
of the store. Again, the areas to the side of the buildings are
parking areas and are not used by customers. They are too far from
the entrance ways of the buildings so consequently they are not
utilized to any extent.
Finally, the seasonal nature of this means we are more than willing
to limit in terms of size and duration of the sales. Basically the
time period when sales occur is April 1 to July 15. September 1 to
`rr..
11200
October 1 is basically the back end of these sales. Shrubberies
tend to be sold at that time period. Again, the seasonal demand,
the limited nature of the areas that are being used, I think are
all things that are useful to meet the demand the citizens want and
.. also to protect those citizens as well.
Mr. McCann: Mr. LaBelle, I am one of the regular customers up at the Seven Mile
Store. I ride up there with my son all the time. I spend a lot of
time at that store but I disagree with you as to what it has been
used for in the past. When I go up there, there are weed eaters,
there are lawnmowers, there are motorized tractors, there are
bicycles, patio furniture, clothes, any number of items out there
all year long. To me that bothers me. It has been a real sore
spot because at one point they asked to enlarge the outdoor area
and I agreed to it and asked them if we would consider doing that,
would they take the stuff out from in front of the store. They
didn't want to do that. I like what I am hearing here tonight
about the proposal to limit it to garden supplies. You are going
to use the front for flowers. I think flowers are an attractive
thing. I think there is a need to be able to spread them out so
people can select from them. But I think the dirt, fertilizer,
stone, quarry, blocks, everything should be kept in the garden area
because that is an easier place for people to go and load their
car. As you say, the parking lot gets less use and they can back
up to the gate and load the heavy bags, etc. that they need. If
what I am hearing is correct, you only want to have flowers with no
weed eaters, lawnmowers, tractors, rakes, etc. , some of the other
things that are not necessary to be out in front of the store, then
I would agree with what you are saying. I think it has been a
problem in Livonia and I think it needs to be addressed.
hr.
Mr. LaBelle: I think you have made two points actually, the first point being
non-garden type of materials and the second point relating to the
side sales of non-plants but rather fertilizer and dirt. Speaking
to the first one, when I talk about sales in general in the past
from Kmart being of this type, I am really kind of talking about a
general corporate policy. Obviously, individual store managers
have their own programs to follow but what I have said in that
letter is what Kmart Corporation is willing to do tonight and to
say they are willing to commit to and that is that there will be
plants and garden supplies sold from those areas and nothing else.
Mr. McCann: Can you define garden supplies? A lawn tractor may be considered
garden supplies.
Mr. LaBelle: I would say the garden supplies that we intend by that are not hard
goods but rather the soft type of goods. Garden supplies might
include things like patio stones, fertilizer, dirt.
Jim Shannon: I am the manager of the Kmart in question, the Seven Mile and
Farmington store. I have been manager of that store since July 14,
1988. In terms of Mr. McCann's question, we have absolutely no
problem with limiting displays on the front sidewalk to simply live
plants. To be very honest, I was not aware last year when I had
11201
some of the other items you were describing on the front sidewalk,
I was not aware that I was in violation of any City ordinance. As
a matter of fact, the Ordinance Enforcement Division was out on
another matter considering the vacancy of the Farmer Jack store and
it was not brought to my attention at that time. It was not until
'4410.
this year that it was brought to my attention that I was in
violation of the ordinance and had we known we were in violation we
would have come before the board prior to that.
Mr. McCann: I understand. I think you run a fine store there. I just had a
problem. There was a special restriction on your store.
Mr. Shannon: I was unaware of the restrictions. The circumstances under which I
took over the store, it happened in such a fast manner that none of
this was brought to my attention.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. LaBelle, you said the times for this was April 1 to July 15 and
then September 1 to October 1. What happens with the products
between July 15 and October 1?
Mr. LaBelle: It is a seasonal demand. By that time they have sold the extra
supplies they have purchased.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I understand that but you said between September 1 and October 1
was their sales.
Mr. LaBelle: Their close out sales.
Mr. Vyhnalek: But what happens to the plants that are left over after July 15?
Mr. LaBelle: There aren't plants that are literally left over after July 15.
What we are talking about is the larger amounts that are ordered
during the early spring months. They are brought back into the
garden area.
Mr. Shannon: We always have had a spring shrubbery program and a fall shrubbery
program. The fall shrubbery program is a lot more restrictive.
The fall is the best time to plant shrubs and that is why we offer
them at that time. There are quite a few educated people in the
area, educated in the aspects of gardening, and they prefer to buy
shrubs at this time of the year but by that time of year the
business in the patio area of the store has begun to convert to
Christmas and most people don't even expect to find plants in that
area. It is a very limited scope no where along the same scope as
the spring and summer program.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shannon, I really believe what my colleague was asking is after
July 15 when the sales are all through and you have x amount of
plants left over, what happens to them?
Mr. Shannon: I understand. Obviously the plan is they not be there. The plan
is that they will sell by that time. However, in my particular
case, those plants are inside the fenced area. At one point in the
season I had approximately 3,000 shrubs on hand, not counting the
11202
flowers. At the present time I think I have 12. After those dates
we would move them into the fenced in area.
Mr. Engebretson: I happened to be at the Seven Mile, Farmington store last night
r.• and there was nothing in the front and the garden center was empty.
The season has ended. It definitely confirms it in my mind.
Mrs. Fandrei: You do sell the rock and the patio stones and the dirt in the
closed in area?
Mr. Shannon: Yes I do and I tried to restrict it this year. It is simply the
promotional patio block. As a matter of fact, I am doing some
research for one of the district managers in the area. We sold in
excess of 3,000 individual of those items. To address Mr. McCann's
earlier point. Yes, it is better to store those inside the fenced
in area. Obviously for security purposes we don't like to have
those items outside either. However, as an example, on Memorial
Day I had approximately 60 pallets inside the fenced in area and
they were neatly organized but that weekend was so busy, we had so
many cars, it was better having them stored on the outside. There
was such a big demand. We could load more than one car at one
time.
Mrs. Fandrei: I also have had the concern Mr. Tent has expressed of having the
fertilizer and the dirt in the front. It is too easy for the bags
to be broke open and it is all over the sidewalk. My preference
would be to have all of that, the dirt, the fertilizer, anything
that is loose like that, other than the plant material, to be
stored within the fenced area.
`.. Mr. Shannon: I have no problem with that.
Mr. LaBelle: The other Kmart location, particularly the one on Plymouth Road,
has an extremely limited size garden shop. Mr. Shannon has the
advantage of having a very large garden shop. The outside storage
of that type of material does not occur in the front along the
sidewalks but along the side and is kept out of the genral traffic
area. What Mr. Shannon was saying about being able to pull cars up
to there and loading them without getting them trapped in the
garden shop is equally true, in fact maybe more so, at the Plymouth
Kmart location because of the fact of the limited size of that
particular garden shop. It is about half the size of most
traditional Kmart garden shops so it doesn't fit the kind of things
necessary to sell there.
Mrs. Fandrei: Whether it fits or not I still would request that it not be
displayed in the front. The front of the store is not the place to
store dirt and fertilizer even though it is in bags.
Mr. LaBelle: Kmart is agreeing to that. Kmart is not saying that they will sell
the dirt and fertilizer from the front of the store. We are saying
we would sell plants at the front and the larger size goods along
the side.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am still understanding though that there is some of this in the
`r.. front.
11203
Mr. Shannon: I admit I had it on the front sidewalk last year. Again, I wasn't
aware I was in violation of the ordinance. I have no problem
committing to not displaying that type of item on the front
sidewalk. I don't believe the other two stores would have a
`, problem with that either.
Mr. LaBelle: The question is not whether or not it will be displayed in front,
which I think everyone here including Kmart agrees on, the question
is whether or not can we do it in the enclosed area. Kmart is
saying whether it is an enclosed area or just outside the enclosed
area, in either case, it keeps it away from the viewing public so
consequently it does not constitute an eyesore and it is also
easily loaded.
Mrs. Fandrei: So we are in agreement. It will not be on the sidewalk.
Mr. Tent: Mr. LaBelle, I am confused now. What you indicated in your letter
that our staff received, we are talking about flowers, vegetables
and potted shrubs in the front of the building. No hard goods.
You just indicated garden supplies. When you said garden supplies
and no hard goods that would be no weed eaters, no lawnmowers, only
garden supplies like patio blocks. I just want a straight answer
here. We are just talking about flowers, vegetables and potted
shrubs, and that is it, in front of the building. In other words,
this is what you have indicated in your letter and this is what we
have agreed to and we are just asking for the deletion of one other
item, which is bagged soil and fertilizer, in the front of the
store. We would like to have it in the back or the garden area. I
would be willing to go along with this if we limited ourselves to
flowers, vegetables and potted shrubs in the front of the building
Nifty and go by your limited seasons. Now you seem to be hedging. You
are saying we have to have patio blocks. We are going to have to
have fertilizer because we have to load it in the car.
Mr. LaBelle: I guess what I want to say, I am not hedging, the reason why, as I
said before hard goods has a specific meaning in the industry and
general retail. It does not include things like bags of soil and
fertilizer and patio stones. It refers to items like weed eaters
and lawnmowers and things like that. If you want, I will list for
you right now with the assistance of the managers, what we intend
for the front sidewalks and a list for the side areas. Again, I
will ask for the managers help. For the front I would say flowers,
shrubs, vegetables and potted plants. For the sides of the
buildings would be patio stones, which would include the small
stones you pour into areas essentially as a ground cover; patio
stones, the block type that are circular in nature or square; the
bags of soil; bags of fertilizer; landscape timbers; mulch; bark.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. LaBelle, I don't think you can answer this question but
possibly your managers can. I can't speak too much about the
Wonderland store because I don't go to that store. I live directly
behind the one at Farmington and Seven Mile. I was down at the
Kmart store in Wonderland on Saturday to check out the case and you
had bicycles out there, plus there was a stack of bales of
something. They were in the front of the building and they looked
11204
to me like they were ready to fall over. Now you are telling me
all of that stuff has been removed?
Mr. LaBelle: Yes it has.
Mr. LaPine: The next question I have, we are talking about the side. I can
understand what you are talking about at the Wonderland shop but at
the Seven Mile location, we don't have that situation. The only
thing we have there is the sidewalk that runs east and west.
Because if you go around the side, the first thing you hit is the
repair shop and behind that you have your area where you store all
your mulch or your block. I have no problem with that. I think it
has been well kept. I think there is no problem at the Seven Mile
store. I don't have any problem with that. In the front of the
building we are talking about potted flowers, we are talking about
flats of flowers and hanging plants. I have never seen any bags of
mulch or dirt piled up. Any time I got it, I went to the back of
the store. I have no problem with Seven Mile with the plants being
out there because I think you do a good job keeping everything else
in the back. As far as the Wonderland store, the only thing I can
say is what I saw Saturday. If you are going to hold to what you
said here tonight, I don't think there is a problem with any of us.
Like I say, I can't really speak too much about the Wonderland
store but I know the Seven Mile store does a good job of keeping it
under control.
Mr. Morrow: One of the things I am hearing is it comes under housekeeping or
cleanliness. As long as things are kept clean, I don't have any
problems with the petitions. I haven't seen the Builders Square
but I don't have any problems with the Kmarts.
Novo.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add another item of concern and that is the
concern of safety. I think the Seven Mile store has not been a
problem but at the Builders Square store there is a major problem
and while I realize that is coming up later, I guess I am concerned
to ask the staff if the revised site plan leaves a proper amount of
space in the areas on the exit and entrance to the store. The
reason I ask this question is because the Builders Square store,
when I was there several weeks ago, was a catastrophe. The exit
was blocked with a swimming pool. There were dressers and all
kinds of clearance kind of items out there and it was the garage
type sale atmosphere that Ray Tent was referring to earlier that I
think is a bad thing for the City and bad for Kmart Corporation and
I am particularly concerned about the safety factors. Having said
all of that, are you satisfied that they have left adequate space
in the area of the entrance and exits?
Mr. Shane: With the site plan modified by Mr. LaBelle's letter, I am
satisfied. The site plan is rather general and it just outlines
the area. The letter is much more specific.
Mr. Engebretson: I am really surprised, though I know the manager of the store is
not there all the time, someone is obviously in charge, that anyone
in a position of authority in a major corporation like Kmart would
permit the merchandising which inside the store is done in such an
11205
orderly way, for it to be in such a cluttered way outside the store
and particularly to pose safety hazards. I think that particular
point should not go unnoticed.
NowMr. McCann: I agree with what you have to say. For the point we were looking
at, at the Builders Square, are you including that as far as our
discussion regarding plants?
Mr. LaBelle: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: I haven't seen plants and flowers at Builders Square. I didn't
realize they sold them.
Mr. LaBelle: They do but most of it is done at Kmart.
Mr. McCann: We are going to get rid of everything in front of the Builders
Square except for plants?
Mr. Engebretson: Actually I brought up Builders Square just as a point of
reference because it is part of the Kmart family but I did want to
make the point about the safety and I wanted some assurance that we
weren't facing that kind of a problem as a permitted City approved
function. If the store managers can't deal with it, although I am
sure that Mr. Shannon, after hearing him here tonight, is very much
concerned about it.
Mr. Gniewek: The one point Mr. LaBelle made as far as 8 feet in width at all
times, the fact that is not strictly from the building outward but
it could be from the building 4 feet and 4 feet from the curb side
and there could be a walkway between the plants. Is that correct?
Mr. LaBelle: That depends on the width of the particular sidewalk. But it would
be 8 foot widths.
Mr. Gniewek: I agree with you wholeheartedly. It does sound a lot safer that
way. Generally when the plants are working from the building
outwards, people do tend to spill out into the parking area so I do
think that was a point well taken. I think it should be noted in
the condition that that type of a situation does exist so you do
have a walkway between them rather than all in front. It makes for
better access for the customers also.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-400-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-18 by Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use
approval to expand the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and
garden supplies on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-6-2-18 be approved subject to the
Now following conditions:
11206
1) That the outdoor sales shall be confined to areas as illustrated on
the Site Plan drawing submitted.
2) That the materials to be sold on the walkway in front of the
�+.• building shall be limited to bedding plants (flowers and
vegetables) and potted shrubs.
2) That the time period within which the outdoor sales will take place
shall be limited to April 1 to July 15 and September 1 to October
1.
4) That the outdoor sales to be located on the walkway in front of the
building shall be limited in width so as to maintain a clear space
for pedestrian circulation on the walkway of at least 8 feet in
width at all times.
5) That all areas be maintained so the walkway is clear and free of
obstruction.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
N,,.. 4) That the proposed use is a normal part of the operation of the
Kmart facility.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-19 by Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to expand
the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies on
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington
Road and Norwich Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we can dispense with the formalities here. We have
basically covered this discussion in the previous public hearing.
Is there anything new.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
11207
#7-401-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-19 by Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use
approval to expand the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and
garden supplies on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Norwich Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-6-2-19 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the outdoor sales shall be confined to areas as illustrated on
the Site Plan submitted by Kmart marked Exhibit B dated 6-23-90.
Inc.
2) That the materials to be sold on the walkway in front of the
building shall be limited to bedding plants (flowers and
vegetables), and potted shrubs.
3) That the time period within which the outdoor sales will take place
shall be limited to April 1 to July 15 and September 1 to October
1.
4) That the outdoor sales to be located on the walkway in front of the
building shall be limited in width so as to maintain a clear space
for pedestrial circulation on the walkway of at least 8 feet in
width at all times.
5) That all areas be maintained so the walkway is clear and free of
obstruction.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is a normal part of the operation of the
Kmart facility.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-20 by Builders Square, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
expand the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies
on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
`r.
11208
Middlebelt Road and Tech Center Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
Lr zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have any additional comments that pertain to
this site?
Mr. Nagy: Nothing additional. The general comments that referred to the
other two sites pertain here as well.
Mr. Tent: Mr. LaBelle, this one I don't think we can resolve at this
particular time. We have a very dangerous situation at the
Builders Square and I was a witness to what had taken place. Your
lumber carts, they are flying missiles. I saw one of your lumber
carts get carried away because of the slope in the parking lots and
they wiped out all the taillights of a mustang. Another time they
took out the taillights of a buick so I had our staff take some
pictures. I have 7 photographs here to show you why these carts
should be redesigned, they should limit the picking up of lumber to
the side entrance and not allow them in the parking lot because
they are causing a lot of problems in that lot that your managers
may not be aware of because the customers are not complaining
because they think other drivers are backing into their cars.
Every one of these carts, because of the design of the carts, are
taillight and bumper high so when they are released at the top of
the hill, they roll down and go right against the car. Would you
take a look at these. I would rather have you take this under
advisement and come up with an answer before I, as one
'4111'' Commissioner, would like to act on it.
Mr. LaBelle: I appreciate your concern about this. Let me talk to a couple of
things. First thing, the slope of the parking lot. The slope of
the parking lot always has to be a compromise between two things,
grading it so the water does not stand in the parking lot and a
safe slope so that people can walk on it safely.
Mr. Tent: We agree with that but your carts can be designed to accommodate
that. There is Forest City and other parking areas where they
handle lumber and none of those carts have those high rails that
are taillight high. Those are unique to your Builders Square
operation.
Mr. LaBelle: What I was going to say as a general matter concerning this subject
of the lumber carts, I have got to say I don't know if that is
relatively germane to what we are talking about now. We are
talking about the specifics of outdoor sales. This could
potentially be a problem I suppose. I haven't seen the carts the
way they are made but these are used in all Builders Square stores
apparently. If I could ask a question of you. How did these carts
get loose? Did they get loose by a customer letting go of them?
Mr. Tent: The customer letting go of them. They park alongside their car and
they roll down. Other customers they just push them down to the
11209
center of the parking lot and, of course, when they pick up
momentum they just come to rest on the taillight, as you can see on
those pictures. If you are concerned about your customers, I am
concerned about how Kmart and Forest City and other places, that is
'taw part of our site plan review, do they conform with our parking
requirements, etc. I would hope that you are not going to argue
the point that it is something that you are not concerned with.
Mr. LaBelle: I was just informed these things have brakes. Each one of these
carts have brakes which can prevent them from moving one way or
another. I am not sure where I go from here. Do I admit we are
going to redesign all Builder Squares' carts? Do we put bumpers on
them?
Mr. Tent: That is your problem. I am just saying you have a safety problem
and you are damaging cars. I am a big proponent about having 10
foot wide parking spaces so you aren't banging each others doors.
Kmart has been very kind about it. They were the first ones to
come in with 10 foot parking spaces. That is a protection of the
cars. I, as one Planning Commissioner, want to do what is best for
the City. I want to make sure our parking lots are safe, equipment
is safe. I am certain you are aware what the cost is to replace
all the taillights of an automobile. These are your customers. If
you are not concerned, I am very disappointed with you.
Mr. LaBelle: That is not what I am trying to say here. I am an attorney for
Kmart Corporation. I am not someone who designed these carts. I
am being asked to talk about something concerning the carts. I am
here to talk about the plans. I don't know how to answer. I can
bring this concern to both the attention of the manager who is here
`. and who now knows about it as a result of this discussion. I can
bring it to the attention of the people at Kmart headquarters.
Technically Builders Square is a separate corporation but it is a
subsidiary of Kmart. In any event Builders Square also has liason
with Kmart headquarters in Troy. Again, I can bring those concerns
to them. I guess the best I can do is tell you I will bring the
concerns to the proper people.
Mr. Morrow: I have a concern. I am not sure it is germane to this issue.
Would Kmart be liable if one of their carts got away and took out a
bumper?
Mr. LaBelle: I am not going to express an opinion. In every specific case it
would depend on who was actually negligible. It would probably be
on a case by case basis. If you are asking the question, would
Kmart be brought to suit. Anybody with $40.00 is going to sue
Kmart. Would we be involved in the suit? Yes. Would we be
liable? I don't know.
Mr. Tent: The shopping carts they have at Krogers, the metal ones. I have
known people who have gone in and they have had Krogers repair the
sides of their automobiles. There wasn't one case where it wasn't
brought to the proper authorities that the shopping center wasn't
held liable.
11210
Jim Konkowski, Manager of Builders Square: In almost every case where there is
cart damage to a car, we have paid the damage unless it is a
deliberate act by another customer where we can see where a
customer actually pushed that cart into someone's car. I have paid
virtually every repair to every car that has been brought to my
attention.
Mr. Tent: You will pay for every one that is called to your attention. This
mustang, the lady got in her car and drove away and she didn't
realize, she thought somebody backed into her. She was not
conscious of the fact that she should go in there and tell you
people because you might throw her out. For all those that you
paid, there have been a lot of husbands ask what happened to the
back of that car.
Mr. Konkowski: I have already made notes.
Mr. Kluver: Could we get back to the issue?
Mr. Engebretson: I think we are about ready to close the public hearing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What happens to the garage sale items we had out there? Where will
the odd pieces be now?
Mr. Konkowski: They will be kept in the normal stocking areas. We will just have
a special sign on those items.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You will just keep them inside where they belong and put a special
on them?
tio" Mr. Konkowski: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Let the record show that the public hearing section of this item
was addressed along with the two Kmart stores with the exception of
these additional items.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
4#7-402-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-20 by Builders Square, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to expand the area utilized for outdoor sales of plants and
garden supplies on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt Road and Tech Center Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-6-2-20 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the outdoor sales shall be confined to areas as illustrated on
the Site Plan drawing submitted.
2) That the materials to be sold on the walkway in front of the
fir.
11211
building shall be limited to bedding plants (flowers and
vegetables) and potted shrubs.
3) That the time period within which the outdoor sales will take place
N,,,., shall be limited to April 1 to July 15 and September 1 to October
1.
4) That the outdoor sales to be located on the walkway in front of the
building shall be limited in width so as to maintain a clear space
for pedestrian circulation on the walkway of at least 8 feet in
width at all times.
5) That all areas be maintained so the walkway is clear and free of
obstruction.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is a normal part of the operation of the
Builders Square facility.
Nor-
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-6-2-21 by Nancy Barile requesting waiver use approval to operate a
sit-down restaurant within an existing building located on the north
side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Bakewell 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
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating this plan is
acceptable to their office. We also have in our file a letter from
the Division of Fire stating they have no objections to this
proposal and a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Lastly, we have
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
'N"' objections to this petition.
11212
Nancy Barile, 35181 Vargo: At this time we are just asking to utilize the existing
seats that we have, which would be in the amount of 12 with the
addition of 18 more for a total of 30 to be used to consume all the
foods that we carry in our store, which has the same items we have
`r had since we have opened two and a half years ago
Mr. Engebretson: I guess the difference is the ordinance has changed a bit to
permit restaurant type facilities.
Mrs. Barile: Exactly.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
##7-403-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-2-21 by Nancy Barile requesting waiver use
approval to operate a sit-down restaurant within an existing building
located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road, in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-6-2-21 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 3-24-87 prepared by John E. Wisniewski,
Architect which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the total number of customer seats shall be limited to 30
regardless of what type of food or drink is served, including ice
Sft cream and ice cream products.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-6-6-4
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #85-90,
to determine whether or not to amend Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to
provide for the regulation of restaurant uses as waiver uses when
`'rr.
11213
located in department stores, supermarkets or other developments (in
lieu of allowing such uses as accessory uses).
Mr. Nagy: This is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which differs from
`,t, an actual map amendment. What this would do would be modify the
C-2 zoning section of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for controls
for the location of restaurants within department stores, specialty
stores, similar types of establishments and make them subject to
waiver use approval so all eating establishments which would serve
food or beverage, regardless of the facility they would be located
in, they would fall under the definition of a restaurant and be
subject to special waiver use.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-6-6-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#7-404-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-6-6-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #85-90, to determine whether or not to amend Zoning
Ordinance #543 so as to provide for the regulation of restaurant uses as
waiver uses when located in department stores, supermarkets or other
developments (in lieu of allowing such uses as accessory uses), the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-6-6-4 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will further erode the ability
of private enterprise to provide a variety of services to the
public.
"tor.
2) That the proposed language amendment bears little or no
relationship to the stated purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) That the proposed language amendment is not needed to further
regulate a service that is typically accessory to a department
store type use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Gniewek, LaPine, Vyhnalek,
Fandrei
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: None
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.
11214
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-405-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 602nd Regular Meeting & Public
`.y hearings held on June 12, 1990 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-406-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 603rd Regular Meeting held on June 26,
1990 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-407-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby remove from the
table Petition 90-6-8-8 by Albert Abbo requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a seven unit strip commercial building on the
north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh and Horton Avenue in
Section 31.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
'tor resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#7-408-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
90-6-8-8 by Albert Abbo requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a seven unit strip commercial building on the north side of
Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh and Horton Avenue in Section 31,
subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan #6289 Sheet 1 dated 6/19/90 prepared by Albert Abbo
and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan #6289 Sheet 3 dated 6/19/90 prepared by Albert
Abbo and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan #6289 Sheet L-1 dated 4/12/90 prepared by
Albert Abbo and Associates is hereby approved and shall be
installed on site prior to building occupancy.
4) That the petitioner submit his signage proposal for the site within
30 days for Planning Commission approval.
11215
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Gniewek, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek,
rr. Fandrei
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-409-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-8-8-50
by Dominic Soave requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a retail and
office building on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile
Road and Northland Road in Section 6 with reference to a request by the
petitioner to connect the rear parking and service area to Seven Mile
Road with a new drive approach until the petitioner can produce an
engineered site plan for the drive connection to the side street.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 604th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on July 17, 1990 was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
ATTEST: Gar1 �
Jack ,Engebret�son, Chairman
jg