HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-09-26 14384
MINUTES OF THE 711th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
*t` LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 26, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 711th Regular Meeting& 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 William LaPine Robert Alanskas
James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Daniel Piercecchi
Patricia Blomberg
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott
Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and 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. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-6-1-12 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#418-95,
proposing to rezone 41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of
the U.S. Post Office and north of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from PL to R-4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating on-
site detention of storm water run-off will be required with any
residential development of the site.
We have also received a letter from Electra Stamelos which reads as
follows: "Please, I beseech you not to sell any property that is now
14385
"part of Greenmead! I was a resident of Livonia for 21 years and was
active in the Wilson Dairy Barn when that was purchased. After an
absence of 18 years I have moved back to Livonia (behind Greenmead)
only to find that a `supposed' lack of money is behind this latest move
to sell what is the last of a large parcel of`PUBLICLY owned land!
Are you so short sighted, or short of memory, that you have forgotten
what it took to purchase and develop this unique property?
"Livonia was sighted as the seventh best city in the United States in
which to raise children. Why then would you want to take something
of historical and educational significance and rob the future (your
grandchildren) by selling off a parcel of what is a long-term project -
the development of Greenmead.
"Up to now, the Commission and Council have very carefully
developed all areas of Livonia. Greenmead being one of the last of
PUBLICLY owned lands should be preserved in its entirety and the
careful and responsible community effort of its development continued.
"The money needed for the actual restoration will somehow be found,
if the will is there,just as the money for the original purchase was
found back in 1974. But the land once gone, will never be accessible
once mundane and ordinary homes are built on it. Greenfield Village in
Dearborn is 75 years old and still growing and changing.
"Is this how you would thank Shirley and Bob Bishop for their years of
unpaid service to the community? The very wildness and greenbelt
characteristics of this parcel of land is a treasure to be preserved at all
costs!
"Unfortunately, I will be out of town during the time of your hearings
so I ask that my letter be read and taken seriously."
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner in this particular instance, we will go
immediately to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposed rezoning.
Robert Currier, 38144 Vista Drive: I have lived in Livonia for over 20 years. Some
people travel hundreds of miles to places like Yellowstone Park and the
Grand Canyon to enjoy the spectacles of nature. I myself have been
very fortunate and perhaps more simplistic in my requirements in that I
don't have to go any further than Eight Mile and Newburgh to get my
nature fix. There are no plans to subdivide Yellowstone Park or the
Grand Canyon in order to build 3,000 sq. ft. homes, nor should there be
any plans to subdivide Greenmead for the purpose of residential and
14386
commercial development. Greenmead is a treasure and should be
preserved for the enjoyment of those that come after us.
You will hear arguments from some people that the funds that the City
could gain from liquidating 41 '/2 acres of Greenmead will be used to
maintain the village and support it. We all know parks, museums and
historical sites, and the like, are seldom self-sustaining but rather are
funded through public monies. Livonia is not broke and does not need
to sell off its treasures to perpetuate a half dozen historical buildings.
The forested areas of Greenmead support a treasure trove of wildlife,
including a small population of deer. There are also raccoons, rabbits,
woodchucks, squirrels, numerous species of birds. There is also a
significant stand of virgin trees. Many of the maples in that area are
estimated to be over 200 years old. Once development comes, the deer
will be gone, as will most of the spectacular trees.
The west side of Victor Parkway will eventually be developed in its
entirety from Seven Mile to Eight Mile. As you know, the property is
zoned to permit the construction of 12 story office towers. The
property to the south of the Embassy Suites is destined to become the
home of a mega appliance store. We all remember this was supposed
to be an office park. Drive south on Victor Parkway to Seven Mile and
Pembroke and observe the mess this project has caused in the past two
months. I see no end in sight.
`ow Take the Seven Mile/Newburgh intersection. The Speedway gas
station is being rebuilt at the northwest corner. A large medical
complex has been under construction for months at the southwest
corner. A credit union is under construction on the southeast side and
to the immediate south there is a new residential subdivision. The
whole area is destined to be disturbed for years. It is time to slow
down.
I propose that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that
the status of the Greenmead property remain unchanged. It is zoned
Public Land and should remain public for the enjoyment of the citizens
of Livonia. I further suggest that any change in the status of this
property should be decided by the voters of the City through a
referendum. This is the last large tract of undeveloped land of the City.
It is publicly owned and should stay that way.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to ask the staff a couple of questions. Included in this area
proposed are approximately 6 acres of woodlands, which may, and I
emphasize the term"may", contain wetlands? How can we determine
just how much is wetlands and therefore unbuildable? If there is,
should we not designate these areas as NP and then go about the
14387
balance to R-4? Later on, during site plan, we can determine the
additional open space requirements.
`"' Mr. Nagy: The determination as to whether or not the property has wetlands will
require the retaining of a wetland expert to make an on-site visit to
determine the extent of the wetland area. After that analysis is made,
it will be subject to final review and approval by the Department of
Natural Resources in connection with any actual development of the
property. The burden will be on whoever the eventual owner of the
property is and that determination will be part of their development
process. The developer will have to hire the wetland expert and that
will be taken into account in connection with the site plan or
development procedures, and the ultimate determination as to the
extent of those boundaries will be made by the Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, would it be more prudent if we went through this step now at
this stage of the game to know exactly what is the status of that land?
Mr. Nagy: I really think any prudent buyer, when this property is put up for
auction, would be well advised to consult their own experts in that
area. Experts may not all agree. That is why the final determination is
with the Department of Natural Resources. We don't know with
absolute certainly whether there is or isn't. We know there were
`r► wetlands across Pembroke on the south side of that area and in the
staff's analysis of that area, we think the same wetland area might
extend over onto the City property. That is the answer with respect to
the wetlands. The wooded area is obviously pretty self-evident, what
portion of the property is or isn't wooded. I should also say in
connection with the development of the property, the R-4 zoning
classification that is being planned for the property, there is an open
space set-aside as part of any subdivision plan there that might be
forthcoming. For every lot that is planned, 720 square feet of
property must be set aside for open space purposes, and we would see
that that open space set-aside, to the extent possible, would occur in
that wooded area.
Mr. Piercecchi: Most of the time that is waived.
Mr. Nagy: Lately that is true only because we haven't had the luxury of dealing
with 40 some acre parcels. Where we have had large parcels, we try
to retain that. For instance, it was mentioned earlier this evening by
the previous speaker there is development occurring now at Seven
Mile and Newburgh Roads, Caliburn Estates and Caliburn Manor
14388
Subdivisions. We did get the park set-aside in those two areas.
Where there is significant means, we do obtain that.
%ft. Mr. Morrow: To follow up to what Mr. Piercecchi said, I think regardless of the
wetlands, as we heard from the prior gentleman, there is some fairly
old growth in there, and I think where we are coming from, at least
where I am coming from, is a little closer scrutiny to see if possibly
whether it is wetlands or old growth forest to be exempted as part of
the rezoning procedure. That is something I, as one Commissioner,
would like to get a little bit closer insight on. I did look at the site but
I wouldn't know a 50-year old tree from a 200-year old tree, but I
would certainly like to walk that site and become a little more
acquainted before we send through a carte blanche recommendation
for the whole area because it might be something we might want to
retain. As far as open space, it could be used in conjunction satisfying
any future plat that might come down the line if the City Council
chooses to (a) rezone the property, and (b) chooses to and then
eventually sell it. I think it is a problem. That is where I am coming
from. It is a fairly good tract, and I was impressed with the
information from the audience to take a little better look at it.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Morrow always says it much better than I do but I really do
concur with him. I really hate to just carte blanche zone this when we
do have some beautiful land that we can't replace. Once those trees
are cut, they are gone. I think we should check into it more.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is the entire area under petition here being considered for
sale to one or more developers or is it only a portion of this 41 acres?
Mr. Nagy: This is really a zoning issue. We are really dealing with 41 acres in
terms of zoning, but to answer your specific question, no that final
amount of acreage has not been determined. There is a question as to
whether or not that portion that extends further north along Victor
Drive, 9 or 10 acres, will or will not be disposed of. I think we are
really trying to establish a zoning classification that makes sense and I
think the final determination of how much of that 41 acres actually will
be sold will be left perhaps for another day.
Mr. Engebretson: If the area in question where it is heavily wooded and is thought to
likely be wetland area, would it be possible then that if this zoning
were to occur, then it would be likely that prior to its sale, it would be
appropriate to go back and rezone that to a nature preserve so that it
would be kept in its natural state forever?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
14389
Mr. Engebretson: If that set-aside for 100 homes would be approximately 7200 sq. ft.,
just under 2 acres, would that be in addition to whatever might be cut
',"" out of this area for wetland or nature preserve preservation? Would
that be in addition to it? A large portion of this property, of course,
has nothing on it. It is vacant. I am just wondering if we would see
significant portions of that wooded area be preserved (a) for wetlands
and (b) for the set-aside that would be required for any residential
development there, or is it likely that the two set-aside issues would
come together, merge and be one?
Mr. Nagy: To answer that question, the City is obviously interested in trying to
get a decent return on its investment in this area. Not that the City is
interested in being in the development process per se but they are
really trying to take the proceeds of this and create a trust fund for the
long-term preservation and development of Greenmead. They are
looking to obtain, to the extent possible, a decent amount through the
bidding process. We want to sell everything that is determined to be
surplus. If this property indeed has wetlands, a developer might look
at it and say it is of little value to me. I would have to set it aside for
wetland purposes so therefore would take that into account in
determining his bid. On the other hand, if he knows he has to have an
open space set-aside, then to that extent the wooded or wetland area
would have value in terms of meeting that technical requirement of the
set-aside. Therefore, it represents value to him even though he knows
he can't actually put homes or roads, etc. on it. So I think his bid
would be enhanced by actually buying that wooded or wetland area
even though it is undevelopable because of the requirements of the
state.
Mr. Engebretson: In that instance it would likely not become a nature preserve unless it
was left in its natural state.
Mr. Nagy: We would look for it to be dedicated even though it is bought by a
private sector, but in the planning process it would be set aside in the
public interest, and therefore it could be zoned in the nature preserve
and left natural.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the Historical Commission's position on this?
Mr. Nagy: They are supporting of this with the exception of that ten acre piece
extending further north along the Victor Parkway.
Mr. Engebretson: Did this originate with the Historical Commission or did it originate
with some other body of government?
14390
Mr. Nagy: To the best of my knowledge it occurred first with the administration
who then reviewed it with the Historic Preservation Commission and
the Historical Commission. They got together on it in terms of trying
to come up with a source of money to continue the development of
Greenmead.
Mr. Engebretson: All monies derived from this sale would go exclusively to the benefit
of Greenmead. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is my understanding.
Mr. McCann: John, how much acreage would it leave for Greenmead?
Mr. Nagy: Approximately 60 plus acres.
Mr. McCann: Of that 60 acres, how much currently is in use by Greenmead
including the area they use to park cars during festivals, etc.?
Mr. Nagy: I would say two-thirds of it in one form or another.
Mr. McCann: That would leave 20 additional acres for expansion.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: Why was the 10 acres to the northwest corner put on the petition for
today? It seems like it is pushing into it.
Mr. Nagy: A determination was made as to what was surplus and that was
surplus. It is not used. It is a wooded area almost in a natural state.
It is not even used for parking or anything like that. It is virgin ground
to that extent, and that is why the lines were drawn the way they were
to reflect what was currently not being used.
Mr. Morrow: To expand on that 10 acres across from the R-7 development, one of
the reasons I want to take a closer look at it is because if we decide to
zone that in an R-4 we could take that 10 acres that might be exempt
and perhaps put it in the heavily wooded area, which is down at the
corner of Pembroke and Victor Drive. That is just a thought. Until I
have a chance to look at it a little closer, I can't make that
recommendation, but that is where I am leaning now. As I recall in
checking the site, that particular 10 acres is not nearly as heavily
wooded as some of the other acreage on the site. At least as far as
sending a recommendation to City Council, to get my vote I would
have to do a little bit more investigating.
14391
Mr. LaPine: I understand the reasoning behind the selling of this property. It sets
up a trust fund for Greenmead where they can derive interest on the
%a. money and use it for operating costs over the year, but I have a real
problem with this parcel.
Basically I go back to the 60's and 70's when Livonia was first
starting to be built up, and the City fathers in those days said let's wait
a minute. The City is being bought up so fast by developers and by
industrial parks, that we aren't going to have any open space left in
this town. Therefore, we went to the people and asked the people to
approve four million dollars so we could go out and buy park land.
Now this isn't one of the areas that the four million dollars was used
on but we went along and we bought a lot of land in Livonia to make
parks because we wanted to have left in Livonia a place to breathe.
If this property was owned by a private individual, we wouldn't have
much choice as long as he met the requirements of the ordinance and
everything, but this is City-owned land. We went out years ago and
asked the taxpayer for money to buy land for open spaces, now we
want to sell off City land, which I don't think we should do. I am not
saying in the future we may come to a point where we have to sell off
portions of this land, but I think at the present time we have such very
little open spaces left in Livonia, areas where we have animals running
`•• around and things of that nature, that we should not give that up.
Once we let it go, we never get it back. Therefore, at this junction I
could not in good conscience vote for selling off that parcel at this
time. That isn't saying that at some time in the future, maybe I
wouldn't be around when it happens, this may happen, but it seems to
me with what little land we have left here, let's keep as much open
space as we can for future generations that are going to come into this
town.
Mr. Alanskas: John, is it possible on the northern boundary there could be some
more possible wetlands?
Mr. Nagy: I think it is unlikely but possible.
Mr. Piercecchi: Because there are numerous questions associated with this parcel, and
it seems like it is a matter that is too important to act in haste, I want
to offer a tabling motion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-1-12 closed.
14392
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
rte, #9-178-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on September 26, 1995, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 95-6-1-12 by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #418-95, proposing to rezone
41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of the U.S. Post Office
and north of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 from PL to
R-4, until the Study Meeting of October 17, 1995 and then for a vote at the
Regular Meeting of October 24, 1995.
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.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-1-14 by
the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 22 from C-2 to O.S.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Again, the City is the petitioner in this case. Triple A is the property
owner. Is there a representative of the property owner here? We will
give you the first opportunity to speak. Have you heard anything from
the property owner John? Have they filed a protest?
Mr. Nagy: No they have not.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-179-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-7-1-14 by the
City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield in the
14393
Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to O.S., the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
95-7-1-14 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of Office for the subject property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
consistent with the past use of the subject property and consistent
with the current office use of adjoining property in the area;
4) That the subject property has been zoned C-2 since 1952 but has
always been used for office purposes; and
5) That there are already sufficient commercial uses, such as are
permitted by the existing C-2 district, established within close
proximity of this subject location.
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.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-1-15 by
the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located on
the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Laurel Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you take just a minute to comment briefly on how the
City came to own this property.
Mr. Nagy: The City acquired title to this property through tax reversion. There
were delinquent taxes and they extended beyond the period of
redemption and went to the State of Michigan. The State of Michigan
policy is to notify the local units of government of parcels of property
that they got through delinquent taxes. They gave the City the
r..
14394
opportunity to transfer title to the City, which we have exercised that
right, and we now have title to it. We are in the process now of having
the site investigated for soil and ground water contamination due to the
'tow prior use, and we are having it appraised shortly thereafter in an
attempt to market the property. We have an interested party already.
The Mazda/Volkswagen dealer has expressed an interest in acquiring
that property to make it part of their holdings in the area. That is really
the basis behind the reason for the changing of the zoning from the C-1
classification to C-2 is that auto dealerships are waiver uses within the
C-2, which is not the case in C-1.
Mr. Engebretson: Again, the City being the petitioner here, we will go to the audience to
see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this rezoning
change.
Jim Dupuie, 11196 Laurel: This is the second crossing just south of where the dealership
is on Laurel Street. My wife and I have been residents of Livonia for
over 35 years, and I am not opposed to change whatsoever; however,
we are here to voice our concern over the volume of traffic that we
currently see on Laurel, which is a residential street. The volume may
increase due to the fact the dealership wants to move cars over there. I
have worked at dealerships for many, many years, and I understand that
test drives both by salespeople and by mechanics are very important,
and going along with that, apparently the Stark school property is soon
, ., going to be homes. I think that will increase our volume too because
people cut through that street all the time. We are very concerned
about that. I would like the dealership to understand that we would
like to see them curtail traffic as much as possible.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dupuie, is the traffic from the dealership that concerns you
principally test drives occurring where mechanics are driving cars or is
it people coming to and from the dealership?
Mr. Dupuie: Right now it isn't too many people coming to and from the dealership.
Most of the traffic would be salespeople or mechanics. Generally I
don't have a problem with that because I think they realize it is
residential and they drive a little bit slower, but people see them turning
left on Laurel and say gee both lanes going left onto Wayne are really
crowded, we will just cut down here. It happens all the time. There
happens to be a sign there that says "No Left Turn 3:00 p.m. - 6:00
p.m.". It is a joke. It doesn't work. I think it should say "No Left
Turn Except For Residents". That would really help us a lot, and then
I would truly not have a problem with the dealership using this street at
all. I think they are concerned. They did recently put up some lights
that lit up most of my backyard, and I did call the City and within two
14395
weeks time they moved them, so I know they are willing to work with
the residents. I just want them to know we are concerned about traffic.
'No . Mr. Engebretson: Does Laurel have some way to access back onto Wayne Road?
Mr. Dupuie: Yes it does. It has Pinetree. Just south of Pinetree you run into where
Hines Drive would be, which is a dead-end, but Pinetree is a way to cut
back to Stark on the east or Wayne Road on the west.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't know how you could control left turns being eliminated to
residents, but if that was something you wanted to pursue then the City
Traffic Commission would be the place to do that, and if this is
successful, and if this sale takes place, the dealership would have to
come through a waiver use process where they come through a hearing
much like this, and there can be restrictions placed on waiver uses to
limit activities, and we would hope that you would be notified. Would
they be notified John on a waiver use being two homes removed from
that property?
Mr. Nagy: Anyone within 500 feet of the property would be notified.
Mr. Engebretson: Well it appears they are within 500 feet of the property so you may
want to stay vigilant and stay alert for that notice and come back during
the waiver use process if this is successful, and we could see what we
No., could do to address your concerns.
Mr. Dupuie: It would be a welcome change in that the old Sunoco station and the
auto parts building have been an eyesore for a lot of years. As a
resident who lives right off Plymouth Road, and we get plenty of traffic
anyway, those have been vacant and have been a concern for us for a
long time.
Mr. Piercecchi: To the staff, gentlemen inasmuch as this was a previously vacant gas
station, are there any qualifications that this land must go through
before resale?
Mr. Nagy: We are going through that. That is the purpose of our first step, which
was to hire an environmental engineering firm to make that
determination. Because of the nature of the prior use, it is very likely
that their soil is, in fact, contaminated, but we are going through the
Phase I analysis now to determine whether we have to go through
Phase II. To answer your question, yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-1-15 closed.
14396
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-180-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-7-1-15
by the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located
on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Laurel Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-
7-1-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a small
extension of an existing zoning district in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
3) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation of Commercial land use for the area; and
4) That the Plymouth Road Development Authority has recommended
the reuse of the subject property consistent with uses permitted by
the C-2 zoning district.
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.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-1-16 by
the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located north
of Plymouth Road between Hartel Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 from C-2 to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is it fair to say that this action does not cause any detrimental impact on
the property owners there, but in fact, produces some positive effects
that would put the use and the zoning districts together. If there were
to be a fire or something where there was a non-conforming use, it
would be my understanding that the property owner would possibly be
at a disadvantage in the situation as it exists now. Is that true?
14397
Mr. Nagy: I certainly would agree with you 100%. It would put one uniform
zoning classification on the entire parcel of record so there wouldn't be
`'` the encroachment on residential property of commercial zoning. It has
always been the City's policy to have zoning lines, to the extent
possible, coterminous with property lines rather than arbitrarily going
across the property. It makes no sense. It would remove the non-
conforming status with respect to those houses that do encroach into
that commercial zone.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-1-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-181-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-7-1-16
by the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located
north of Plymouth Road between Hartel Avenue and Middlebelt Road in
the Southwest '/4 of Section 25 from C-2 to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-
7-1-16 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will make zoning lines and
property lines contiguous;
`..
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a residential
zoning district which is compatible with the current use of the
several properties; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-
conforming use status of a portion of the subject properties
involved in this action.
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.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-1-17 by
Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor Trail
between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33
from RUF to R-1B.
14398
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your reasons for
making this request.
Leo Soave, 34882 Pembroke: What we plan is a 31 home subdivision with concrete
roads. They will be 3 and 4 bedroom homes, full brick ranging from
$175,000 to $200,000. I will answer any questions.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to combine this with the other property you own and
make it one sub?
Mr. Engebretson: He has an approved plat. Presumably if this is successful Mr. Soave,
you would replat the expanded parcel with a whole new layout. Would
that be a safe assumption?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That last lot where there is a home on it, do you own that parcel too?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: That home will be demolished?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is when Mr. Soave came through and
had a rezoning and subsequent plat, this is one of the things we would
hope would happen, that some of the abutting property would be
acquired and developed into what I think will be a very picturesque
and nice subdivision in the City of Livonia, plus be added to the tax
roll.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-8-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-182-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-8-1-17
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor
Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
14399
33 from RUF to R-1B, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-8-1-17 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject property for single family residential
purposes compatible with adjacent property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of 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.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-1-18 by
Robert Goldman for Edward and Mary Jo Olschanski requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Inkster Road between Six Mile Road and
Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13 from R-2 to C-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. I also
contacted the petitioner to determine whether or not they would be
interested in having one uniform C-1 zoning for the entire parcel,
and he has responded in writing indicating that at the time he was to
exercise his option to purchase the property, at that time he would
have no objection to having the entire property all in the C-1 zoning
classification, but he does not have title to the property so therefore
he could not authorize it.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your reason
for making this request.
Joe Rokicsak, 32535 Schoolcraft: Basically what we want to do is expand. We already
have an approved site plan for the corner but we have a concrete
wall between that and adjacent properties to the south. What we felt
we could do is come in with a landscape plan that is more attractive
than a brick wall.
14400
Mr. Engebretson: Is the sole purpose of the zoning change to accommodate a berm
taking the place of a wall?
"r.► Mr. Rokicsak: No.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what you just said.
Mr. Rokicsak: Well no that is not the sole purpose.
Mr. Engebretson: Then why don't you tell us the other reasons too.
Mr. Rokicsak: We could possibly expand the building from 9400 sq. ft. to about
11,000 sq. ft. We would have to come back with another site plan.
Mr. Morrow: I noticed you were coming from the same direction I was Mr.
Chairman. How far to the south would you estimate that would
expand?
Mr. Rokicsak: The building would still stay in the top part, but we would make up
the required setbacks, which would fall within that line.
Mr. Morrow: I am trying to get a handle on if we do go along with the C-1 zoning,
how much further are we encroaching towards the residential
zoning? What kind of a separation would we have from the zoning
,4 line to the building?
Mr. Rokicsak: About that entire lot.
Mr. Morrow: It would be about the entire lot so you would have some flexibility
for some form of barrier or something we would determine later on
is a good buffer?
Mr. Rokicsak: The neighbor south of that piece would like to see a landscape berm
as opposed to a brick wall.
Mr. Morrow: So if I am following you correctly, it is primarily just to enhance the
site outside of the building itself?
Mr. Rokicsak: Right, and I gain 1,000 sq. ft. which doesn't hurt.
Mr. Morrow: I don't mind your being a successful operation, I was just trying to
get a handle on how much closer you were going to move towards
the residential, but you are really not making much of a move in that
direction.
ti..
14401
Mr. LaPine: When you originally came before us, it was my understanding you
were building a building for yourself at this location. The rumors I
hear now is that it is going to be a drug store. Is that true?
Mr. Rokicsak: I hope so.
Mr. Alanskas: You want to go from 9300 to how many square feet?
Mr. Rokicsak: From 9400 sq. ft. to about 11,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Engebretson: So you are adding 1600 sq. ft. to the store, and the building is not
being located closer to the residential uses south of that. Is that my
understanding?
Mr. Rokicsak: It won't leave the site where it is C-1 right now.
Mr. Engebretson: Not the area under petition?
Mr. Rokicsak: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: What about the parking lot. Would the parking lot encroach further
to the south?
Mr. Rokicsak: There will be a drive coming in right there just north of where the
existing house is shown.
Mr. Engebretson: Where that house sits, and everything to the south of that, would be
green?
Mr. Rokicsak: Basically yes.
Mr. Engebretson: What does basically mean?
Mr. Rokicsak: You have the side yard setbacks, I think they are 25 to 30 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not trying to be argumentative, but when you say from where
that house is, that everything from there over will be greenery, and
when I go to confirm that, I am told then it is really not.
Mr. Rokicsak: I don't have the site plan design yet.
Mr. Engebretson: Then it is really inappropriate to make the first statement that you
made relative to making reference to where that house is because
you can't make that statement without the site plan, and that is okay
to take that position, but whatever you say, I want to be able to
14402
depend on it. You have been here before and you understand how
that works. This is our only opportunity to make sure we have an
understanding of those issues. Is there anything you want to add sir?
Mr. Rokicsak: Not really.
Mr. LaPine: We approved a site plan on this but now with this new addition he
will have to come back with a new site plan?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes he will. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition?
Ray Tent: This is kind of unusual for me to be on this side. For 13 years I was
on the other side. It is a pleasure coming back. I am here to speak
against this proposed zoning change. I put some notes together. I
don't have the luxury of having all the backup information so I had
to do this by hand, so bear with me.
I was a member of your distinguished board for 13 years and very
proud of the many things we accomplished. At one time we fought
against four gasoline stations on every corner. We fought against
zoning changes that were detrimental to existing businesses, and also
encroach into residential neighborhoods. That was a concern of
ours way back when. Four gasoline stations, do you remember
those on one corner? We licked that. The petitioner had to
demonstrate before us the need for his specific request. In other
words, we didn't give them carte blanche because they wanted to
come up here with a business of some type. We didn't allow big
business to drive the small man out of business because that was
bad, and we are running into this now. This is why I am here tonight
to speak against Petition 95-8-1-18 requesting a zoning change that
would eliminate a residential home that is in fairly good condition.
I am sure when I was on the board we did look at the
neighborhoods. We checked the zoning. We also checked the
condition of the property. These gentlemen have been out to look at
the house they are going to destroy. It is a residential home. The
whole area is residential, and I might add that I have lived in this
area for 40 years, and I fought for the good of the people, for
business and for zoning. I realize how important zoning is because
once you have the zoning, other than site plan approval, it is carte
blanche. You can put your business in or whatever it is depending
on what you come in with as long as you meet the zoning
requirements. I say here that by approving this that you are allowing
this encroachment into the residential area, and destroying a
r..
14403
perfectly good home. That is what it looks to me like. They have an
option on the property. I expect anyone would sell if they got the
right price for it. What is going to prevent them now in a couple of
`�.• years to go ahead and get the other two homes in the area? That is
not good planning. Inkster Road, from that point up, is nice
residential homes in fairly good condition, so for us to go ahead and
arbitrarily allow them to tear this down and put a parking lot there,
that is not good.
I am not opposed to the C-2 zoning at the corner of Inkster and Six
Mile. That is fine. That commercial there has been established for a
long time. It has been there for a long time. There used to be a
Shell gasoline station for many, many years. The owner didn't want
to sell it, and I don't know what happened recently, but now it has
been put on the block. That is a concern. The fact is it is zoned C-
2. They can put any type of commercial there that would meet the
requirements. If that be the case, that is fine.
Now the petitioner is requesting that you allow them to change the
zoning to provide for commercial along Inkster Road. That would
be bad. I don't intend to try to penalize the owner of the property
for using it for its rightful use, but in this particular case, if we go
ahead and allow the zoning to go through, he can expand his
operation and we don't have a leg to stand on. The only way we
can go ahead and not permit a change is by not approving the
zoning.
I understand they want to put a Perry Drugstore at that particular
corner. This is another part of my objection. I realize this is just a
zoning change but this will affect the entire package. I am sure the
board asked for a study to see how many drugstores we have in the
City of Livonia. I am sure Arbor Drugs and Perrys have taken over
the entire City. I would say nobody could die in the City of Livonia,
or the surrounding territory, without finding a drugstore where they
could fill a prescription because they are all over. I am against big
businesses coming in where they drive the little man out of business.
This is where I am coming from now.
Howard's Drugs is located at Six Mile and Inkster. Howard's has
been there for 40 years. Howard's Drugs was there when Farmer
Jack went belly up. Great Scotts was there and they went belly up.
Howard stayed there. He continued his operation through the good
and the bad. Now what happened last year, you approved an
upscale grocery store so that will revitalize that center. Howard has
a chance to exist. What will happen now just as he is ready to smell
14404
the coffee, we have one of the big boys coming in and they are
saying we are going to open up a Perry Drugs right at the corner.
That is going to run Howard's right out of business. That is where I
``•► am coming from. I am concerned.
I look at what happened at the corner of Merriman and Five Mile
with Showerman's and their extension there. Merriman Drugs isn't
going to be there much longer. The little guy that came to the City
40 years ago, he spent his time, his money, his effort. He kept
saying some day I am going to make it. He didn't pull up stakes and
walk away real quick. How many businesses do that? Remember
the Source Club? How about China Coast, three months. They
don't wait to make their profits. If things aren't right, they just pull
out. These little guys didn't. While we can't keep an establishment
from coming in, we have in the past prevented them from locating in
certain sites because we had our zoning.
In this case here, as I mentioned four gasoline stations on every
corner, we are going to get two drugstores on every corner, and we
are not seeing an end to it. I think that is truly wrong. I think it is
absolutely wrong and in this case here, if the Perry chain wants to
operate in the existing zoning they have, the C-2, let them put their
building up. I am not too happy about it, but don't allow them to go
ahead and encroach onto the residential because the gentleman said
ti„„ they want to put more footage on their store. They want to have
some more parking. We don't need that. We have too many
shopping centers that are begging for tenants, and do we want to
add any more to our cache? That corner there at Six Mile and
Inkster, it needs revitalization. The stores have been there for a little
while. I am talking adjacent to the Shell station. If this drugstore
can make it on its own without going any further, so be it, but that is
where you come in because you have control of this at this particular
time. If they don't get the zoning, they don't get the expansion, and
maybe if they don't get the expansion, they aren't going to put up
the store. That is the only way you can do it. Zoning is so
important.
We know what happened at Five Mile and Merriman with the video
store. They didn't have the zoning, and as soon as we went ahead
and changed the zoning, we had no more control over that. That
video store went in just like that. So zoning is so important. I ask
you at this point, don't allow the zoning change to happen.
He already has his site plan. Make them squash that all together. I
guarantee he is not going to show up because first of all, I think he
14405
needs a liquor license to go ahead and operate. Howard's has one.
I doubt very much if he will get one unless they get Howard's.
N.• My concern here now ladies and gentlemen is we have been around
the block here in the City. We have seen the big boys come in and
push the little guys out. I have been privy to that. We have seen
that happen. In this particular case I am concerned that they are
doing too much. I have great respect for Arbor and Perry Drugs,
but I certainly don't want to see them at every corner of our City.
Like I said earlier, you will never run out of prescription locations
because they will be there.
With that in mind, I would hope in this particular case, while we are
not denying him the use of his land that he has zoned now in the C-2
if he wants to put up something there, fine, but let's not let it go into
the residential area and encroach on that. We all know what a
cement wall looks like next to a residential property, and we all
know the old saying"Promise them anything, but give them
Arpege". This is what they do. They come in with a beautiful
picture and then what you get is what you hope for. Just remember
China Coast. One more thing, who do you think ran Churchill
Lumber out of business? It wasn't Rally's Hamburgers. They are
not there any more.
*4111. Look around the City. We have a good city here in Livonia. We
have done an awful lot, so when these guys come in now and they
want to take all the guys that have been here for years and years and
shove them all away, don't do it. That is where I am coming from.
I just hope you will listen to this and vote your conscience but don't
give away the City.
Tino Boudouris: I am Howard's Drugs so there is good reason to be here. Howard's
Drugs was opened about 40 years ago by Howard Erlington, who
since passed away in 1974, and myself and Dennis Ramey have
owned the store since 1970 with Howard Erlington. We had a great
store for all those years until five years ago when Farmer Jack sold
to Great Scott, who then sold to Krogers. Krogers closed the place
and kept paying the rent to just stifle competition for five years.
About two years Farida Investments knocked everything down,
except Howard Drugs, and now we are looking forward to a great
center. The new shopping center owners bought it, and we are
looking forward to new buildings, more traffic, and now we are
faced with Rite Aid coming in. Everyone says Perrys but it is Rite
Aid, who is an out-of-town drug chain that is about to open across
14406
the street. Not just down the block but directly across the street.
Do we need two drugstores at the same corner. In my opinion, the
answer is no.
sow
Going west on Six Mile you have a lot of sparse land, sparse homes
and two cemeteries. Going east on Six Mile Road you have two
drugstores and tons of party stores between Inkster and Telegraph.
We also, at that point, would have Rite Aid open across the street.
You would have Howard's selling beer, wine and liquor, the Value
Center Market also selling beer and wine, Trade Vine, the party
store directly across the street, selling beer and wine, and Perry's
selling beer and wine, and possibly liquor, and they probably need
this extra land to get their liquor license. The need to be set back a
little further to get their liquor license. I don't know that for sure
though. So there would be four places right on the corner selling
beer and wine and possibly another selling liquor.
You, as City planners, in my opinion, should be looking at something
that is needed on that corner, not duplication, but something
different. Something that is not available just next door and across
the street.
You as City planners have an obligation to existing businesses that
have paid their taxes and administered services to that part of the
community, to not turn your back on us after 40 years.
Nlior
Something you should remember about chain drugstores also.
Remember Cunningham Drugs, Revco, Arnold Drugs, F & M?
They are ready to go under. They are not going to make it.
Pharmore that was coming in at Middlebelt and Seven. What
happened to them? What happened to all these huge money losing
chains?
The other question I have is why did Perrys sell to Rite Aid? In my
opinion there are two reasons. Arbor was beating the hell out of
them at every turn, and secondly, according to some execs at Arbor,
Perry was facing a huge deficit for problem billings at Blue Cross.
Talking of Blue Cross, Arbors has paid Blue Cross,just in the last
year, settled with them seventeen million dollars for the same
problem, overcharging Blue Cross. So this is what some of the
chains are doing. If they settled for seventeen million, how much
did they really owe?
Is this what the City of Livonia wants putting up nice drugstores
across from each other, selling the same merchandise, the same
14407
products, which then makes it difficult for either store to prosper, or
should they be looking for some other business that does not exist in
this area so that everyone can continue to exist, especially a store
that has served the community for 35 to 40 years.
That is not to say anything about the poor people that are going to
have to be looking at this in Redford after they encroach down
Inkster and we are going to be looking at alleys, garbage, etc., which
the people in Redford are also looking at, in our corner. Four to five
homes there have these huge bushes up there so they can't see these
places. These people should be considered.
• 8:40 p.m. -Mr. LaPine left the meeting at this time
Robert Goldman: I am the petitioner, and I would like to respond to any questions you
may have as well as the comments made by these two gentlemen.
First of all, I really don't believe the issue should be whether or not
Rite Aid Corporation is overbilling Blue Cross. I don't think that is
anything that can be substantiated at this time.
I also don't believe that we are talking about the use. I have a 9,000
and some odd sq. ft. site plan approved that both Arbor and Rite Aid
are interested in leasing. Neither lease has been executed. The
normal proto-type store is 11,000 sq. ft. They will both take the
9,000 sq. ft.
This has nothing to do with liquor. This has nothing to do with the
request for a liquor license. That would be done without any
involvement of mine, and it could be turned down or approved at the
City's discretion so I don't really think that has any bearing on our
discussion tonight.
In terms of gas stations on every corner, I have agreed to do away
with the C-2 zoning and rezone it to C-i which would prohibit, I
believe, those type of uses.
In talking about eyesores, the real eyesore that exists is Mr.
Olschanski when he looks back at the commercial piece in his
backyard and he knows the piece that we are trying to rezone will
only square off the existing commercial as it was probably intended
to be initially. He is in the audience and can speak but he has been
billed commercial and had to come to the Assessor's office to
change it and explain he is not a commercial site, he is a residential
14408
site. Somehow that sawtooth that is cut out of there as residential
backs up to Mammoth Video.
''ow We are trying to clean that corner up. We are trying to do away
with an abandoned building. We will do that with the 9,000 if we
have to. We would rather go up to the 11,000 because that is what
our tenants prefer. In addition to that, the 9,000 sq. ft. site plan has
a few too many potatoes in the sack and we are trying not to be
sitting straight up next to the residential. By allowing us to square
the area off, and clean up the zoning there, we are doing away with
any potential outgrowth that would ever come and allowing a decent
setback, be it greenbelt as well as a driveway. I believe the setback
that Joe was referring to would be about 50 feet or so, which has to
be a lot more attractive than building right up against an existing
residential site.
I just don't think it is really the place to debate whether or not Rite-
Aid should be existing in Livonia or anywhere as opposed to
Howard's Drugs. I hate to see the issues of Five Mile and Merriman
dragged up again. All we are simply doing is asking for the rezoning
of a small piece to square off an area. As far as the drugstores are
concerned, we already have a site plan approved and ready to go on
that site.
Marty Krygier, 27456 Whitcomb: That is right in back of this area.
What I am concerned with is if this goes through and it is a parking
lot, I know a lot of Perrys are open 24 hours. Is this going to be a
24-hour thing with lights? The corner of my yard is 10 feet from
the corner of the lot to be rezoned. I would have to oppose it.
Mr. Engebretson: As far as the lights are concerned, we can't give you any comfort on
that tonight. We understand your concern, and your comments are
duly noted.
Mr. Morrow: Just to amplify what you just said to this gentleman. Sir, assuming
whether or not this goes through, if it should happen to go through a
site plan would have to come back to accommodate what we just
heard from Mr. Goldman. At that time we are very cognizant of the
surrounding areas as it relates to traffic patterns, lights from cars,
lights from parking lots. We do everything we can to make sure the
residents in the area are shielded. We can't talk about it at zoning
level but there is another step. Should it come to pass, you may or
may not be invited, but we will certainly be looking at it from that
standpoint.
14409
Elmer Elonzae, 16955 Inkster: I have been there for about 40 years, as long as Howards
Drugs has been there, and I had that property and at one time it was
zoned commercial. I came in front of this board maybe five or ten
`,, years ago and we had it rezoned to residential. When they built that
home, it was a brand new home I bought there, and Inkster was a
dirt road. That corner of Six Mile and Inkster is terrible. Something
has to be done. I have been talking and coming to the board for
years. We even talked to Mr. Nagy a couple of times about what
should be done. The lady that owned it, we couldn't do nothing
about it. There is a big woods there and there are skunks there, and
raccoons and opossums and everything back there. I wouldn't
object to it getting rezoned as long as there is a nice building or
something put there and I don't want a concrete wall barrier along
my property.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, are you the property next to the Olschanskis?
Mr. Elonzae: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: The petition that made the zoning change that you refer to ten years
ago, is that the one you are referring to?
Mr. Elonzae: The four homes from Six Mile to Whitcomb Drive. If they are going
to build a nice building, actually we don't need another drugstore,
but if there is some other store they can put in there or something
% I between that corner. I don't know if you gentlemen ever have been
down there to see that corner. It has been an eyesore for a long
time. It should be cleaned up. It would be nice if they could put a
nice building there that would look nice to beautify Livonia.
Mr. Tent: I want to make a comment to Mr. Goldman. He said we have
eliminated gasoline stations. Sure, that was done a long time ago
because the zoning had expired so they couldn't run a gas station.
That is done and gone so therefore we accomplished our mission.
The thing that I was concerned about at this particular time, if they
want to put up a building at 9,000 sq. ft. let them sell it. I doubt if
anyone will pick it up. I think they shouldn't encroach on that
residential area. That commercial corner there should be
commercial but it should go for the type of use. The other thing, the
City has been derelict for all those years in not cleaning up that
corner. That looked very bad. That vacant Shell station. The lady
that owned that property, she is about 95 years old, and she only
wanted to sell it to anyone that put up a Shell station, and Shell
didn't want to locate there any more. That lady died so now they
14410
are in the position of settling her estate now, and that is probably
why it is up for grabs again.
r,,` Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tent I can assure you that having served on the Roads
Beautification Committee with Mr. Shane and the Mayor and others
for a number of years now, the clean up of that corner has been very
much under the microscope and the City has really worked diligently
to bring it to a conclusion, but it was an impossible situation to
negotiate but happily its start has begun and hopefully it will come to
a happy conclusion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-8-1-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-183-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-8-1-18
by Robert Goldman for Edward and Mary Jo Olschanski requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road between Six Mile
Road and Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13 from R-2 to
C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 95-8-1-18 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a further
",,`, encroachment into an established residential area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible with the
adjacent residential uses in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential land use for
the subject property.
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. Piercecchi: The existing R-2 zoning, for the people that have forgotten about it,
was established in 1985 from the subject property and the next three
consecutive lots to the south were rezoned from C-1 to R-2. this
previous petition, 85-5-1-13, had been initiated by the Planning
Commission on its own motion at the written request of the property
owners who had asked that the rezoning be changed to reflect the
residential use of the property. I find it a little bit puzzling why now,
14411
sometime later, we want to start taking them back one at a time. I
am very happy to support that motion.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
*tow adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-2-25 by
Robert Splan requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant in a proposed shopping center located on the northwest corner of
Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire Marshal
stating their offices would have no objection to this proposal. Lastly,
we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found with the plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your reasons for
making this request.
Bob Splan, 20145 Silver Springs, Northville: This will be a Subway Restaurant. I own
one now on Plymouth Road by Sports Authority and one in
Plymouth. I am an owner/operator. I am in all the stores every day
`�► to make sure they are kept clean and running good. I think this will
be an asset to the shopping center and the area around it.
Mr. Alanskas: This will be just 30 seats?
Mr. Splan: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
waiver use?
Mike Southers, 11118 Brandon Court, Plymouth: I am here in support of this petition as
the local development agent for Subway Sandwiches for Wayne
County. We feel this meets the zoning classification and usage of the
Four Oaks Shopping Center as well as the Subway criteria that is
accessibility, visibility and population. As our owner/operator stated
he owns the nearest Subway both east and west of this location, and
that is why he was chosen to be the operator for this location versus
bringing in a different person. I am here in support of this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: What kind of trash originates in a Subway store?
14412
Mr. Southers: Most of it is boxes. We have very little food waste. All of our
meats, lettuce come prepackaged and precut so there is very little or
no waste. Ninety percent of our garbage and trash are the boxes the
yo„ products come in. There are also cans. We don't get much in cans
any more.
Mr. Engebretson: The food waste, is it generally disposed of in the disposal?
Mr. Southers: Yes. We run less than 1% food waste. The key to Subway is its
simplicity. It is very minimal. We don't have any waste just because
everything is coming in pre-prepared for us. The only on-site thing
we do is bake our bread. That comes in frozen.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the bread baked on a continuous basis? I am looking at the
residential uses right at the rear of this.
Mr. Southers: It is baked mostly in the morning, through lunch time.
Mr. Engebretson: As good of an odor as it is, I don't know if I would want to have it
24 hours a day.
Mr. Southers: We are not open 24 hours a day, and it is really not perceptible
outside the restaurant.
Mr. Engebretson: What are your hours of operation?
New
Mr. Southers: Mostly from ten o'clock in the morning until nine at night. It
depends on the area. Looking at that area I would say maybe Friday
and Saturday we could be open until eleven at night.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-8-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-184-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 on Petition 95-8-2-25
by Robert Splan requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant in a proposed shopping center located on the northwest
corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-8-2-25 be approved subject to a limitation of no more than 30
customer seats for the following reasons:
14413
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03
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; and
4) That there is a lack of eating establishments in this area of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for
Orangelawn Woods #2 proposed to be located south of Plymouth Road between
Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is everything in order?
Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. The final plat has been drawn in conformance
with the recently approved preliminary plat. We have a letter from
Engineering recommending approval and a letter from the Clerk's
office stating all financial obligations have been met.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-185-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Orangelawn Woods#2 proposed to be located south of
Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 33 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in complete compliance with the
Preliminary Plat;
2) That all financial assurances required for the subject subdivision
have been deposited with the City Clerk; and
14414
3) That the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final Plat.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
,` adopted.
Mr. Soave: I would request that you waive the seven-day waiting period.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-186-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Final
Plat approval for Orangelawn Woods #2 proposed to be located south of
Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 33.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether
or not to rezone a portion of Helman Park located in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 9 to nature preserve.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a request to set a public hearing date. I am looking for a motion
to do that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-187-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.05
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone a portion of Helman Park located in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from PL to NP; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
14415
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether
or not to rezone Denmar Park located on the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8 to
N•10. nature preserve.
Mr. Engebretson: This item, like the last one, comes to us from the Parks& Recreation
Commission asking for these public hearings to be set to determine
whether or not to make those zoning changes. I am looking for a
motion.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-188-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.05
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone Denmar Park located on the Northeast 1/4
of Section 8 from PL to NP ; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`ikk" Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether
or not to rezone Madonna Park located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 to
nature preserve.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a third request by Parks & Recreation asking to set a public
hearing to rezone a section of Madonna Park. I need a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-189-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.05
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone Madonna Park located in the southwest
1/4 of Section 20 from PL to NP; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
14416
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or
not to rezone Greenbriar Park located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 to
nature preserve.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a another request by the Parks& Recreation to rezone
Greenbriar Park to nature preserve.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-190-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.05
of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone Greenbriar Park located in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 21 from PL to NP; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
'ti.r recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 709t Regular Meeting&Public Hearings held on August
15, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-191-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 709th Regular Meeting& Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 are
hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 710th Regular Meeting held on August 29, 1995.
14417
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#9-192-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 710th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on August 29, 1995 are hereby approved.
A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
fir. AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Piercecchi
ABSENT: LaPine
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-8-21 by
Southeastern Michigan Management Company requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at
32520 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Farmington and Mayfield Avenue. It is zoned C-1, which is
local commercial, and it is about 1.5 acres in size. What is proposed
is to build an 11,700 sq. ft. retail center. It will be adjacent to the
center which is called the Loveland Plaza Shopping Center. The
building will be U shaped with store frontage along the front of the
building which faces Seven Mile Road. The plans show that you will
't.r be able to enter the site on a shared drive with the adjacent shopping
center off Seven Mile Road and also a drive off Mayfield Avenue.
Parking will be in the front of the shopping center as well as the rear.
The floor plan shows seven units could be possible for this shopping
center, so parking required would be 75 spaces and the site plan
shows 75, so they conform in parking. They have submitted a new
landscape plan which conforms with the site plan. If you remember,
at the study meeting the two plans didn't match. The new plan does
match with the drive in both areas. We have landscaping along the
front, which is Seven Mile Road, as well as a little landscaping along
Mayfield Avenue. The plan shows 11% landscaping. They are
required to have 15% so they are deficient in landscaping. The center
is almost a perfect match to the adjacent Loveland Plaza Shopping
Center so it will look alike. The building elevation shows all four
sides of the new proposed building will be brick with asphalt shingle
roof. You will have a stucco type decorative finish in the peak areas
and any windows that are bay will have a copper type of decorative
roof.
14418
Mr. Piercecchi: On the original plan there was not an enclosed dumpster.
Mr. Miller: There is no dumpster area shown.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, should we include that in our motion?
**ow Mr. Engebretson: We will see what the petitioner has to say Mr. Piercecchi. Do you
have anything to add Scott?
Mr. Miller: The landscaping doesn't show a dumpster. I think you would almost
have to take parking away to have a dumpster.
Mr. Piercecchi: He has to have some place for a dumpster for his trash.
Mr. Miller: They are required to have an enclosed dumpster area.
Mr. Engebretson: Any comments John?
Mr. Nagy: Unless they care to hold it internally and take it out on trash day. I
am not sure that is their plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Let's let the petitioner speak to that issue and any other issues he
cares to address.
John Mahn, Southeastern Michigan Management Company, 18770 Farmington Road.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you care to address the issue of the dumpster Mr. Mahn?
Mr. Mahn: It would be stored inside with compactors. The major tenant we are
negotiating with right now has nothing to do with rubbish or a
restaurant. That is not our intention there.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, let's assume that he is successful in leasing the entire
'`r• center to tenants who have the capability and desire to use
compactors internally, what if there came a time when that wasn't
working out and we found trash being stored externally, would it just
be a function of normal inspection activity that would control that?
Are there any restrictions or restraints that we could include in an
approving resolution to make sure that doesn't happen?
Mr. Nagy: You certainly can do that as part of your site plan approval process.
You reserve the right to review and make change with respect to
trash handling. Absent that, unless we had a very conscientious
landlord, who when such a change was brought about would come in
voluntarily and ask for a site plan change, it would be left that the
Inspection Department likely would catch something like that and
then suggest the property owner come in a seek a revision to the site
plan to provide for an alternate method of the internal trash handling
than was first approved as part of the plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you continue to own the property Mr. Mahn?
14419
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: What other comments would you like to make?
Mr. Mahn: I have none.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, is it all right to allow this to go through without a dumpster?
%By Do you think we can manage this?
Mr. Nagy: We have always strived for internal trash handling. It has been one of
our goals to avoid the dumpster situation as far as we could.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have a tenant?
Mr. Mahn: At this time at least half of it is going to be leased to a video store.
Mr. Morrow: To go along with what John said, in years past we certainly addressed
the dumpster issue. If the petitioner can come up with a way to
keeping the trash inside, we would encourage that. I think I have
been known to say if we can put a man on the moon, we should be
able to figure out a way to get rid of dumpsters.
Mr. Alanskas: That would be cardboard boxes mainly that would break down?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to thank the staff for having provided the background
information as we dealt with this matter some years ago. That was
very helpful with the situation and it appears we achieved all the
objectives that were set out at that time, and I am looking for a
confirmation that we were, in fact, able to do that.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
'\.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-193-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-9-8-21 by Southeastern Michigan
Management Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a commercial center on property located at 32520 Seven Mile
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 12/18/90, as revised,
prepared by Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that all parking spaces
shall be 10 ft. wide and 20 ft. in length;
2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped;
14420
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 dated 7/14/89
prepared by Southeastern Michigan Management Company, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
r.. 4) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Southeastern Michigan
Management Company dated 9/22/95, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded lawn areas, and all planted materials shall be installed
prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition.
6) That a sign shall be posted at the Mayfield driveway prohibiting
truck access.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-8-22 by
Office Depot/William Pope requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for
signage and the renovation of the exterior of the commercial center on
property located at 29320 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
25.
Mr. Miller: This is the shopping center on the northeast corner of Plymouth and
o.• Middlebelt Roads. They are proposing an Office Depot to take over
30,000 sq. ft. of one of the middle units. As part of their proposal
they would like to redo the whole front of the shopping center. Their
elevation plans show what they would do to their storefront. They
would elevate the parapet, a more decorative parapet. They would
add some pillars and columns and refurbish the whole storefront.
Along with that they will also add a metal seam roof band along the
entire storefront on the west side. On the east side where the
building more or less jogs out, an existing canopy will be refurbished
with stucco, which it is presently. It will just be cleaned up and the
stucco will be redone. The west elevation, which is the elevation that
faces Middlebelt Road, right now it is brick, and it would stay in its
natural brick state. There would possibly be a stucco type of
decorative paneling along the top of the wall. The east elevation will
be repainted. On the north elevation they show a new loading dock
area right behind their store. Also with this proposal they are
proposing to resurface the entire parking lot for the center and
restripe it.
14421
Mr. Morrow: I noticed in site checking, there are a couple of pierced walls in the
back that have paneling blocking it off. Did the petitioner give us any
insight as to what is going to happen to those walls?
Mr. Miller: Not really. You can ask him.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, you described the treatment on that elevation as possibly
being pressed stucco trim. What is that?
Mr. Miller: Right now the canopy type of treatment wraps around this wall and
follows it. The petitioner has explained they don't really know what
is underneath it. If it is brick, they would like to have the whole wall
brick. If it is a block material, then they would add the stucco type
treatment. They are hoping it is brick then that way they would leave
it brick.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Miller. Actually I knew the answer to that question
but since I made someone else define his comment earlier tonight, I
didn't want to give him special treatment. We do have a letter from
the Inspection Department that addresses that but I cannot find it at
the present so we will let the petitioner deal with that. Would the
petitioner please give us your name and address for the record and
make whatever comments you wish to make.
Bill Pope, Office Depot, 10220 Emerald Coast Hwy., Destin, Florida: I do have a copy of
that letter that you are talking about. Just to clarify a couple of
things. We are positive of what we are going to do for this center.
We don't own the center. R& D owns the center, and they have a
bad reputation here as I found out the last three months. We almost
lost this deal a couple of weeks ago. We had done quite a bit of
work on this center and recommended to R& D what they would
have to do to satisfy the City, and they decided they didn't want to
pay for it, and Mr. Nagy had a long talk with them and persuaded
them they had to go forward. We are bound and determined to go
forward. In fact, we are financing the renovations and we are getting
it back in rent reductions. That is the way it is being done. It will be
done under our contractor, Turner Construction here in town. In
other words, you don't have to rely on R& D. You can rely on us to
get the renovations done.
There are a couple of things to point out. The wood on the center is
completely rotted. It is all being pulled down, and as we said the
wood along the side, we hope there is brick underneath. If not, we
will continue the dryvit band compatible with the rest of the building
that we are renovating. We are completely redoing the canopy. We
will be redoing the lighting underneath the canopy. We are a Triple
A tenant. We don't go into centers like that without bringing it up to
par. One thing that was missed, we are re-lighting the parking lot.
14422
We also have pledged to bring up the landscaping, and it is mostly the
islands. The peripheral of the shopping center is in pretty good
shape. We have probably approximately 12 islands in front of the
center. The trees are living but they need to be spruced up. The
plantings in those areas need to be brought up and we are having a
landscape plan done now to turn into the Planning Department to
ti"" show what we are going to do there. I can't think of anything else
that Scott has missed. Those are our intentions. They are in plans.
They are in working drawings. We finally got R& D to agree with
us and we are prepared to locate our store in there.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Pope, you mentioned you are putting in new parking lot lighting.
Could you give us a preliminary sketch of that.
Mr. Pope: We were told the standards could not be higher than 20 feet. We
have prepared photometrics that satisfy us on that basis, and that is
what we are calling for. The standards are not going to be high
standards.
Mr. Morrow: You are not very close to residential but there is some in the
immediate area but it sounds like you have addressed that concern.
Mr. Pope: We knew early on we had to do that. We realized your concern
about double stripping and when we redo the parking lot we will
restripe it.
Mr. Engebretson: 10 x 20 bays?
Mr. Pope: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: John, is the sign"Office Depot"before us already or will that be
`rr► later?
Mr. Nagy: That is a sign before you now.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a conforming sign.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it an illuminated sign?
Mr. Pope: Yes it is an illuminated sign. We have reduced it to meet your
requirements.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy, is there any way the second hand store
can be spruced up as far as the trash out in back, etc.
Mr. Nagy: Since this petitioner has voluntarily taken it upon himself to deal with
the site plan, they will have to deal with all the matters including the
trash. It is all part of the approval package for the center.
Mr. Morrow: Mrs. Blomberg raised an interesting point. Mr. Pope how do you feel
about some of that storage, and I don't know if it is permitted or not,
because the retail shop appears to be using trailers to do some type of
storage on site. Do you have any insight into that?
14423
Mr. Pope: We are not the landlord. We walked through the store today. I don't
know, some of this is hearsay and some of it isn't, but we understand
they may be closing. We would be the happiest people around if they
did get out of there. Usually along with us comes better tenants. We
are a Triple A tenant. We think normally bookstores and other uses
that pertain to office uses follow us. We are doing two things. We
are doing the top of the thrift store with dryvet material so that will
spruce it up and at least the center will look uniform. We did have
our brick people out there today. We talked about the opening back
there, and we matched the brick today, and we are going to block up
all those openings with the matched brick back there.
Mr. Morrow: I am going to follow up through the staff, is that parking of trailers a
permitted use back there?
Mr. Nagy: No it is not.
Mr. Morrow: Then I would make a recommendation that somehow we bring that to
the attention of the appropriate people because it sounds like this
center is going to be upgraded and I think if they are in violation, we
better address that and have that loose end taken care of.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the Inspection Department has visited the site to make the
pertinent comments that they have, I suppose they are already aware
of it, but I think Mr. Nagy would be in order sending a memo to them
letting them know we are concerned about a possible prohibited use
occurring on the property and ask them to revisit it and take
`vr.1, whatever action is appropriate. Mr. Pope I want to commend you
and your firm for taking such an aggressive action to spruce up one
of the real eyesores in the community, one that as you mentioned
earlier, has been a source of a great deal of trouble and frustration,
and I think what you are doing here is outstanding, and I hope your
firm is successful in not only operating your own business there but in
attracting other tenants of the same quality that will take what was
once a blighted area of the community and return it to a shining
example of what can be done with some hard work. I just think what
you have done, going way beyond what you have to do, is just a
really positive sign. I just don't know what better entrance you could
make into the City than that, and so with that kind of business plan I
am sure that you will be as successful as you are elsewhere and we
would certainly hope you would be. If there are no other comments
then a motion would be in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I too share your opinion Mr. Chairman. They are doing a great
service to the City cleaning up that corner. At the last meeting of the
Plymouth Road Development Authority, which I have been trying to
attend, they too are delighted.
14424
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
'try #9-194-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-9-8-22 by Office Depot/William Pope
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for signage and the
renovation of the exterior of the commercial center on property located at
29320 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved
subject to a call back for the required landscape plan and to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan by Tushie Montgomery Associates, Inc. received
by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1995, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the parking lot described on the approved Site Plan shall be
completely repaved and restriped with double stripes, including
those parking and driveway areas adjacent to the sides and to the
rear of the building;
3) That the Building Elevation Plan by Tushie Montgomery
Associates, Inc. received by the Planning Commission on
September 27, 1995 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the 140 sq. ft. sign as shown on the approved Building
Elevation Plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval prior to final
inspection.
As well as the following conditions as described in the correspondence
dated 9/18/95 from the Inspection Department:
1) That the two boarded up openings on the north wall shall be
blocked in and the entire wall shall be repainted;
2) That the wood stockade fencing located at the northern most
portion of the protective wall shall be replaced with concrete to
match the rest of the existing wall.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Pope: I would ask that you waive the 7 day waiting period.
14425
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#99-195-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Petition 95-9-8-22 by Office Depot/William Pope requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection
with a proposal for signage and the renovation of the exterior of the
commercial center on property located at 29320 Plymouth Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-8-23 by
Planet Neon Sign company requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for
signage and the renovation of the exterior of the commercial building on
property located at 33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
3.
Mr. Miller: This petitioner is proposing to add a parapet wall to the front
elevation of Joe's Produce which is located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Mayfield. The parapet
�.. wall will be added to the front elevation so they can add a sign area.
The parapet will be made out of dryvet. There will also be a metal
seam roof band along the front elevation and they will be adding
"Joe's Produce" signage along there. The signage, they are allowed
to have 130 sq. ft., and the signage works out to be that so they have
conforming signage.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner did appear at our study meeting and because
everything is in order, it is a conforming sign meeting the ordinance
requirements, we excused him from being here tonight so I will look
for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-196-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-9-8-23 by Planet Neon Sign Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for signage and the
renovation of the exterior of the commercial building on property located
14426
at 33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 that Petition
95-9-8-23 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 1 dated‘.4111.. prepared by Marco Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered top
2) That the Sign Package by Planet Neon Sign Systems received by
the Planning Commission on September 13, 1995, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 711th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on September 26, 1995 was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R ' (010/14L
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
n
Slow ATTEST: . , t' AA td % G
Jack Engebretso Chairman