HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-08-16 13584
MINUTES OF THE 688th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 16, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 688th 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.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg
William TaPine Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: James C. McCann
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 was Acting Secretary in the absence of Mr. McCann.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is
Petition 94-7-2-24 by Goldman Properties, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses for a proposed store
to be located within an addition to an existing building located on
the northwest corner of Merriman and Five Mile Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and
Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this
proposal. Tastly, we have received a letter from the
Inspection Department stating the existing building currently
has a deficient setback on the south side abutting Five Mile;
however, the proposed expansion of the existing building will
not create any additional deficiencies to the site. They end
by saying their department would have no objections to subject
petition.
13585
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Please come forward and explain the
reasons why you are making this request.
Joseph Rokisak, 36586 Pinetree, Livonia: I am a partner of Goldman Properties,
`rw which will be the owner of this property. Scott Bowers is the
architect who is here to answer any questions, as well as a
representative of Perry Drugs.
Scott Bowers: I am with Bowers and Rein Associates Architects, 3915 Research
Park Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The existing building is
approximately 9800 square feet and our proposed addition is
another 12,718 square feet. What we have done is proposed an
extensive greenbelt in the rear yard, 25 feet, and planted it
with vegetation for a screen wall towards the residential
area. Along the side next to the church we have proposed a
five foot high wall along the entire side. There is an
existing setback deficiency from Five Mile. The other
building does not have any setback deficiencies. We have
eliminated several entrance ways. We pulled them away from
the intersection and straightened them out. There were quite
a few different entrance ways and we added extensive
landscaping at the front of the structure. The building
itself, we are going to upgrade the whole facade and give it
more of a contemporary look with dryvet on the top, metal
brick-red awnings and brick work down below with doors for
various tenants.
Mr. Engebretson: What would presently be perceived to be the front of that
store facing Five Mile Road would now face Merriman?
Mr. Bowers: The majority of it would be facing Merriman. Five Mile would
still have an awning and a door. We have eliminated the
parking on that side of the building towards Five Mile.
Mr. LaPine: Have you looked at any alternate plans to relocate this
building, making it an L shape rather than a long building?
Mr. Bowers: There isn't really a lot of room for us to make it an L shape.
Mr. LaPine: I talked with Mr. Shane and we had our plan out here. It
looks like it can be done. You may have to eliminate a little
bit of the new addition but it seems to me the building would
be better as an L shape building. I don't think the long
building architecturally is not that pleasing the way I look at
it. Secondly it gets a little away flout the church property
more. Have you looked at that alternative?
Mr. Bowers: No we did not look at an L shaped building.
Mr. LaPine: Well Mr. Chairman I would like for them to at least look at
that possibility because after you and I went out to that site
Saturday we discussed it and it looks to me like it is
feasible. I think it would make for a better type of
building, quite frankly.
13586
Mr. Morrow: Based on the opening remarks, I understand this is going to be
subject to approval before the Goldmans become the property
owners. Is this correct? They are not currently owners of
the license or the property?
Mr. Bowers: Yes that is true.
Mr. Morrow: We have roughly two known tenants. We assume that Honey Baked
Ham will remain there.
Mr. Bowers: Yes Honey Baked Ham will remain.
Mr. Morrow: And Perry Drug will be the major tenant?
Mr. Bowers: Right.
Mr. Morrow: And the other space will be speculative or do we know of any
other tenants?
Mr. Bowers: We do have BoRics but the remaining space is speculative.
Mr. Morrow: So we do at least have two?
Mr. Bowers: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Under the Waiver of Use one of our concerns is traffic and I
know from observing that site over the years that the Ticket
Master operation can at certain times generate quite a bit of
traffic. Are there any plans to continue Ticket Master at
this particular corner?
Mr. Rokisak: Right now we don't have plans for continuing it. The big
problem is there is such a small space that they use inside
the existing Showermans that you can't rent them a 2,000
square foot space for Ticket Master.
Mr. Morrow: It was just an accessory use to Showermans and it does
generate traffic from time to time. I have observed long
lines there through the night waiting to get particular
tickets. The other question I have is probably for Perrys.
As far as the SDD and SDM, of your total operation what
percentage does the SDD and SDM represent as far as your total
overall sales operation? Can you address that?
Lou Frango, 5400 Perry Drive, Pontiac, 48056: I don't have an overall chain
average. Generally we view the SDD and SDM licenses as an
incidental part of the business. It is part of the overall
convenience that we market. By and large the pharmacy is the
main component of our business accounting for 40% to 50% of
the sales. We like to have an SDD license where we open.
Where it is not feasible for whatever reason, that doesn't
13587
preclude us from acquiring a site. We pick it first and
foremost as a good pharmacy location and we view the rest as
incidental conveniences and departments that we like to have.
``. Mr. Morrow: So basically we are going from an SDD/SDM as a primary use to
a prescription, which is the primary use. I would suspect
that those particular licenses are among other accessory uses
in conjunction with the prescription use because I know you
sell a lot more than just beer, wine and prescriptions.
Mr. Frango: Oh certainly. Our prototype store is about 11,000 square feet.
We have cosmetics. We have magazines. We have health and
beauty aids. We have a number of stores in Livonia. I am
trying to think of the closest size wise. If you have been in
any of the local Perry Stores.
Mr. Morrow: Seven and Farmington perhaps?
Mr. Frango: Sure, any of those stores would probably be representative of
the product mix we would have here.
Mr. Piercecchi: This facility really troubles me. I am afraid it is beginning
to look like another small strip mall, subject to the many
vacancies that we see on Middlebelt and Five for instance and
between Seven and Eight on Middlebelt. We have a lot of strip
malls. They have a lot of vacancies. Plus if you want to
look at the ordinance, and I assume we all do, the current
package as it is laid out is really in violation of 19.06(a)
which calls for harmony and development of the area. We are
just going to saturate it with more and more drug stores,
which is the prime thing we are talking about here. Section
19.06(b) deals with traffic. Obviously this new facility is
going to cause more traffic problems especially during the
time of church services. Section 19.06(c) relates in part to
property values. I can't imagine the drug store on Merriman
Road there surviving the competition with a Perry, which means
we are going to have a vacancy there. In addition to that Mr.
Chairman, the particular site as it is laid out really goes in
conflict with 11.01(r)(1) and (r)(2) . Although the current
Showermans and other businesses are now in conflict regarding
the separation of 500 feet from existing SDM licensed
businesses and 400 feet from church buildings, these
conditions, I am led to believe, were in existence prior to
this ordinance and, therefore, had grandfather status.
Nevertheless, permitting this waiver would further reduce the
separation of the church facility from about 210 feet, if I
paced it off correctly, to about 80 feet. This is indeed
contrary to the intent of the ordinance, which is 400 feet.
It is not our job, I am sure, to limit commerce. However, if
you want to get dawn to the nitty gritty here, there are so
many dollars that are going into the drug store hisiness.
13588
That would put three of them into that area. Unfortunately,
when you have too many businesses of one sort in one area,
something is going down the tubes. Mr. LaPine's solution
would perhaps save that one drug store on the corner of that
�.. strip mall.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Frango if the SDD and the SDM is a very minute part of
Perry Drug's business and you are saying that prescriptions
are a large percentage of your business, why would you want to
come right across the street from another large drug store?
What is the concept?
Mr. Frango: The concept is we believe there is enough population in the
trade area to support an additional store. All four quadrants
are well populated and Five Mile and Merriman are both strong
arteries carrying a good amount of traffic. Frankly, we
wouldn't locate someplace where we felt that the potential
wasn't there to succeed. We feel it is a good intersection.
Mr. Alanskas: The Honey Baked Ham that is at the front of the building now,
would they go and take the entire south side of the building
or just the one side like they are now?
Mr. Bowers: They would stay like they are now.
Mr. Alanskas: But they are only on one side. What about the other side?
Mr. Bowers: They are going to take the full length of the store.
*4111. Mr. Alanskas: How many square feet would that be?
Mr. Bowers: Roughly 3200 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: So they would be expanding quite a lot.
Mr. rapine: Showermans, at the present time, is basically a beer, wine and
liquor store. I guess a party store would be the best
description I could give. Will the operation you are going to
have within the Perrys going to be a typical Perrys beer and
wine? You are not going to have all the liquors? Showermans
has a tremendous inventory. There is no doubt about that.
One of the biggest, I understand, in the state of Michigan.
You are not going to have that type of an operation.
Mr. Frango: No we are not? It would be our standard store and I think we
are talking about 28 linear feet of liquor.
Mr. rapine: So you won't be in the liquor business as they were. You are
going back into the normal Perry Drugs and the amount of space
you will have in there will be a lot less than is in there
now?
Noel.
13589
Mr. Frango: Comparable to what you see at Six Mile and Newburgh or any
other Perry Store with liquor.
Mr. Engebretson: Does Perry view that to be an attractive enough location to
firy operate without an SDM/SDD license since drugs and
prescription drugs are your main business?
Mr. Frango: Prescription drugs are our first and foremost main business
but we nonetheless would like to have an SDD and an SDM if
they are not in conflict and if they are not prohibited by
ordinance or by law. While we are not truly a party store and
it is not our primary line, it is an incidental part of the
business that we like to present as we do the cosmetics, film
and any of the other components of the store, so we view it as
an important, although not substantive from a dollar
perspective portion of the business.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding your reference to complying with the ordinance, you
would be in conflict with the ordinance, as Mr. Piercecchi
explained, from several points of view, most particularly the
distance you would encroach on that church's property, and
while you can get relief on that from the Zoning Board of
Appeals, clearly as far as the straight ordinance is
concerned, you do not comply. Having said that, would you
reconsider your position concerning the SDD and SCM?
Mr. Frango: I think it would still be our position to try to obtain the
waiver to obtain the SDD and SDM and if we were turned down,
either locally or at the state level, whoever has
`tor jurisdiction, then that is the answer. In many cases you are
not supposed to be within a half a mile but if you are
separated by a four lane street you can apply for a waiver,
etc. so we would probably go forward and try to obtain the
waiver and if we were successful, that would be our primary
goal and if we were unsuccessful, we would be unsuccessful.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you still locate the store there?
Mr. Frango: I would hazard to say that we would but we would like to have
both licenses certainly.
Mr. Engebretson: Is any part of that property that you are utilizing in the
site plan being purchased from the church?
Mr. Frango: No.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that proposed wall on the lot line between this property
and the church?
Mr. Bowers: It is one foot off the property line.
Mr. Engebretson: Haw far from the church structure would that wall be located?
I couldn't quite envision where those lot lines are out there.
13590
Mr. Bowers: I would be guessing. I am not quite sure how far away that is
from the lot line.
Mr. Engebretson: It is just a matter of curiosity. When we were there we
'r.•- couldn't tell where the footprint of that building was going
to land and where the wall would be.
Mr. Bowers: The building itself is going to be another 153 feet from the
end of the existing building.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add sir?
Mr. Rokisak: The tree line that exists alongside the church is roughly the
property line so the trees would remain and the fence would
effectively be on the inside of that.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing
to speak for or against this proposal.
Jack Freij, 38227 Lana Dr. , Farmington Hills: I also own Merriman Drugs. I
have been there for a little over 12 years. Initially I,
after living in Livonia and I did live here until recently,
decided to locate my hisiness also in Livonia. I took over
the business from the gentleman who owned it before me who had
been there since 1955. I have remodeled the store and I am
about to remodel it once more. I would like to briefly give
you an idea of the nature of our business. We have become
over the last few years, particularly since the beginning of
this year, extremely competitive, dictated to the tune of 90%
or better of our prescription business by insurance companies.
Our profit margin has become very, very slim, and it is
creating an atmosphere within the industry of gobble, gobble
an increased market share between the two giants of the
industry that are left. I have been around as a pharmacist
since 1974 and for three years prior to that as an intern, and
I have seen them come and I have seen them go. Many of you
will probably remember the names Cunninghams. A lot of the
younger generation won't. A lot of you would remember the
name Arnolds, Revcos, and the list can go on. They come in
and, in my opinion, practically destroy the atmosphere,
destroy the market, destroy the business and take away the
personal service that a few of us that are still left in
Livonia offer, myself, Livonia Drugs. I can't name too many
independents that are left in Livonia. I apologize. From my
personal perspective I am against it obviously. I believe it
would eventually destroy my business and yes it would create a
vacant space adding to the six other vacant spaces that are
already in the center. The center across the street has many
vacant spaces. The list can go on in any center in that
section of Livonia, which incidentally if you were to
calculate from Middlebelt to Newburgh, in that four mile
stretch of Five Mile Road I have counted six drug stores.
13591
That is 1.25 drug stores per mile. I don't know if Livonia
needs another drug store unless you have had any complaints
about my service at Merriman Drugs. I appreciate you
listening to me and I thank you very much.
`a..
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Freij, do you currently sell liquor and beer at your
store?
Mr. Freij: I do not sell liquor. I have never wanted to get into the
liquor business. I do carry a small section of beer and wine
as a convenience to retain the traditional image of a drug
store.
Mr. Morrow: Similar to what Perry was asking for?
Mr. Freij: Not really. On a smaller scale. I have seen some of their
stores, particularly the Six Mile and Newburgh where they
carry a large section of liquor and beer and wine.
Mr. Morrow: So with the liquor and the wine going out as the principal use
probably your business could increase in that area. People in
that area will be looking for other places to buy. That is
not the main thing. If my information is correct, the zoning
is proper on this particular site. Were they to drop the SDD
and SDM they would only be deficient as far as the ordinance
is concerned by one setback.
Mr. Freij: By all means I am objecting to the use of the SDM but let's be
practical. I am not going to lie to you here. Neither my
business nor their business depends on the SDM license.
Mr. Morrow: The point I want to make is without the SDD and SDM and a few
modifications to that site, they could go in with a drug store
providing they met all the ordinances. In other words, we
cannot preclude somebody from coming in and setting up a drug
store there. I just don't want you to think we can
unilaterally say we don't want any more drug stores. The
zoning is there. If the zoning weren't there, we might say we
have too much commercial and agree with you but when it is
commercial they pretty much have a license to put anything
that fits that zoning in there. I just wanted to make that
point with you.
Mr. LaPine: Before you go on, you brought something up and I just want to
expound on that for a second. In a drug store, I would have
to assume, the biggest business is prescription drugs. Is
that correct?
Mr. Freij: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: You are driven nowadays by the insurance companies. They more
13592
or less set the rates that they will pay you for the drugs.
Is that correct?
Mr. Freij: Correct.
Mr. rapine: When a big chain such as Perrys or Arbors comes into an area,
does the insurance companies pay them the same amount of money
for the drugs that if your customers went across the street?
Would they get the same amount of money?
Mr. Freij: They would be paid the same sir.
Mr. LaPine: So there is no difference in the amount of money.
Mr. Freij: Per prescription as fees yes, however, this is an area that is
becoming more dangerous to the independents. They have been,
in the past, able to secure either sweetheart deals or
exclusive contracts.
Mr. rapine: So if one of the big automobile companies, through Blue Cross,
said we will give you such and such a deal but all our members
have to buy their drugs from Perrys or from Arbors.
Mr. Freij: They, in a sense, have done that with the General Motors
salaried people.
Robert Goldman: I am the owner of Goldman Properties. My address is 1078
Puritan, Birmingham. I just wanted to respond to some of your
comments if I may. With regard to the sale of the license
�.• from Showermans to Perrys, it is possible that if this license
is not approved for sale along with the site plan, that rather
than Showermans we were also looking at other liquor store
operators to come in and occupy. The fact that Showermans is
for sale is not new or specific to me. They are going to sell
that store. They have been out looking to sell it and it is
not owned by Showermans. It is owned by someone whom I am
sure you are aware of, and this venture has not been one that
he wants to continue, so that store will be sold and
converted. Whether it is converted to a Perry Drugs where it
sits now without an addition or whether it is sold to another
liquor store owner with the same name or different name, these
are all things we do not yet know. I will probably close this
transaction with or without a Perry Drugs, and whether or not
I locate them within the Showerman facility. The only reason
we moved them back and came up with the plan we did was
because a modern drug store needs a higher roof than the
existing structure allowed without a great deal of expense in
contracting. The license should go part in part with Perry.
If not, the license should still stay in effect. It would just
go to somebody else. If Perry goes in there without a liquor
store, then what I would probably do is put a smaller liquor
store in the front to use the license. I don't know how that
13593
affects your thoughts but you should understand the whole play
here.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Goldman. The issue here tonight is whether or
`. not to approve a waiver use request to utilize an SDD and SDM
license, a hard liquor and beer and wine license, in a
proposed new building to the north of the existing building,
and along with that comes the site plan approval. That is the
issue tonight. The matter we have to sort out is whether or
not to recommend that approval. If there is no one else in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal, I
am going to close the public hearing.
Mr. LaPine: Before we make a motion I would like to ask the staff, is it
feasible to move this building in an L shape and would that be
a better solution to utilize this property than what they are
proposing here from the staff's point of view?
Mr. Nagy: It is certainly possible to lay it out in that L shape.
Whether that would be beneficial, I think you have to consider
right now you have a rear yard and the existing building has
its rear yard facing to the west so that it is exposed to
eastbound traffic on Five Mile Road. There is no exposure of
the rear yard or service area to any traffic on Merriman Road.
By changing it and making it L shaped, you are going to have
the new wing having its rear yard exposed to Merriman Road.
So in a sense you are going to have two rear somewhat smaller
yards because of the L shape and maybe that is a trade off and
maybe it isn't. It seems to me that with the rear yard in the
manner it is shown it is much more interior further north from
the right-of-way and therefore less visible to the traffic on
the mile road. Other than the long linear configuration, I
think just simply what is generally the undesirable portions
of a commercial development, you are getting it further away
from the mile road.
Mr. LaPine: So you tend to think this proposal has more merit than the L
shape.
Mr. Nagy: I think this proposal tends to have more merit than the other
way but that isn't to say the other one wouldn't work. This
might have a little more merit.
Mr. Morrow: John, I am safe to assume the church to the north was notified
of the particular situation here tonight and apparently they
did not have concern enough about the operation to visit with
us tonight. I just wanted to verify that we did serve notice.
Mr. Nagy: They were notified.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-7-2-24 closed.
13594
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#8-138-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 16, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
`f.. 94-7-2-24 by Goldman Properties, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses for a proposed store to be
located within an addition to an existing building located on the
northwest corner of Merriman and Five Mile Roads in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-7-2-24 be denied for
the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver
use standards as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the waiver use
standards set forth in Section 11.03(r)(2) with respect to the
requirement for SDM and SDD licensed establishments to be
located at least four hundred (400) feet distant from any
church or school.
3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with
the adjoining uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote
and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not
`w oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being
proposed.
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. Morrow: I am going to vote against this. I know it is in conflict
with the ordinance but the existing use, I think if it came in
today, if I am correct, would also be in conflict with the
ordinance. I think that the overall site with one major
tenant going out and the other tenant already there, I have
the feeling that probably this will be not even as heavily
trafficked as it was prior, which as I indicated earlier was
part of the waiver use, so it is for those reasons, the zoning
is already there, that I am going to vote no.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: TaPine, Morrow
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13595
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
L.. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use
approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an
existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 32.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last mooting so we need a motion
to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-139-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting
waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity
of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 32 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: If I recall correctly Mr. Nagy, we had a request from one of
the principals of this proposed parking solution who asked us
to table the item until proper contracts could be worked out
Nor. and signed. Is that a correct recollection?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you know if those matters have been taken care of?
Mr. Nagy: They did have a contract prepared and they did furnish our
office with a copy of it. The parties, pursuant to that
contract that we have, have come to an agreement on the fact
of utilizing 31 spaces that is surplus on the Days Inn
property. We have reviewed that contract and we have had our
Law Department review it, and while it certainly indicates an
agreement, the comments that came back from the Law
Department, to use their words, it was a sloppily drafted
contract. In one case it is a lease. In another case it is
an easement. In one case it is a corporation. In another
case it is a partnership. There were some language problems
that the Law Department had but they certainly indicated that
it was an expression of willingness on the two parties to come
to an agreement.
Mr. Engebretson: So they had an agreement in principle but not necessarily a
quality document that neither the City nor the petitioners
could rely on. Should we defer?
13596
Mr. Nagy: It is really a matter perhaps the two parties of interest
should work out. I think the Commission, at least in
principle, should be satisfied that at least the parties have
come to an agreement. If you want to see a revised document,
'"r maybe we could take action and hold it up until the revised
document is received. We have called it to their attention.
They are aware of the comments that we received from the Law
Department. I don't know if the parties of interest have
decided to do anything with it other than go forward with it
as is.
Mr. Engebretson: Are any of the parties here this evening?
Ivan Benda, 130 Fast Sunnybrook, Royal Oak: I am the architect for the project.
Mr. Severo Chemello is the owner of Herc's, who is the grantee
in this matter, and we have discussed the matter with his
lawyer. As Mr. Nagy has pointed out we will redraft the
language until it is satisfactory.
Mr. Engghretson: Is it your position, from your point of view, that you could
move forward with this phase of the matter and that you could
sort out the contractual arrangements between you?
Mr. Benda: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the gentleman behind you from the other side of the
transaction?
Steve Gottlieb: I am from the Days Inn. We are in agreement with the contract
"gory the way it is written. The words lease and easement to us are
the same. The fact that the contract is going to be rewritten
shouldn't pose a problem to us.
Mr. Engebretson: As I recall you were the one that asked that we slow down the
process here.
Mr. Gottlieb: Two weeks ago we did not have a contract. Now we have a
contract and it has been signed by both parties.
Mr. Engebretson: So you are satisfied?
Mr. Gottlieb: Sure.
Mr. Morrow: I guess what we are saying is if they could have that
agreement redone and approved by the Law Department before our
motion becomes effective, we could move forward on this
tonight.
Mr. Engehretson: I think we could move forward on it. I don't know that we
really need to be concerned as long as the spirit of the
arrangement appears to have been carried out.
Mr. Morrow: My only concern, and I am not going to debate it, but as time
marches on these things get foggier and foggier through the
13597
years. I think we have seen it in the past where people have
made commitments to get off-site parking only to find it
erodes. I don't want to impugn anybody's integrity but those
are just my thoughts on the matter.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there any reason that it would be not convenient for you to
have this matter settled within the seven-day period?
Mr. Benda: We could do that.
Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Morrow makes a good point. We will assume that
you are going to do that. We have the option, within the
seven-day period, that we could rescind this action and that
does force it back to ground zero but maybe a good compromise
would be to approve it with some burden put on you to get the
contract done. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Mr. TaPine: Since I wasn't at this meeting I am a little confused. They
are adding an addition, adding seats, they don't have enough
parking so they went off site and worked out an agreement with
Days Inn to get additional parking?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes since Days Inn has excess parking.
Mr. LaPine: Days Inn at one time was going to be converted into another
type of operation. Is that dead in the water?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
`taw Mr. TaPine: Is the addition going to be compatible to the building?
Mr. Ehgebretson: Yes it is.
Mr. Piercecchi: How long has it been a practice of this particular board to
require when they sign leases to pick up additional parking
spaces that you specify a particular time? Is there a time
frame that is required for these things?
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to ask Mr. Nagy to respond because I honestly don't
recall.
Mr. Nagy: We want it recorded and we want it to give third party notice.
Who is in jeopardy is really Days Inn. Herc's can have the
additional seats as long as they have the ability to satisfy
their off-street parking requirements. But if Days Inn ever
wants to expand or enlarge and needs that surplus space to
satisfy their requirements and they want to abort the lease,
then one or the other has to go back to zero to meet the
off-street parking requirement.
Mr. Piercecchi: But in the process Mr. Nagy that place has been expanded.
13598
Mr. Nagy: Then they take out the seats. Either one or both are in
jeopardy if they want to abort the lease or cancel the lease
or easement, whatever they have.
`r.. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any time frame on it?
Mr. Benda: One year with an option for an additional year.
Mr. Engebretson: So you understand sir, as has been discussed here, if for
whatever reason that lease was terminated by Days Inn, that
Herc's would lose the benefit of the expansion area in terms
of seats.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-140-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 26, 1994 on Petition 94-6-2-19 by
Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to increase the
floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning
Commission do-Ps hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-6-2-19 be approved subject to variances being granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to an existing
non-conforming building and a deficient front yard setback and to
the submittal of a recordable instrument which allows the
petitioner to utilize at least 31 parking spaces on adjacent
property and to the following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 7-7-94, as revised, prepared by Ivan
Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 6-16-94 prepared by
Ivan Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed
137.
4) That any roof top mechanical units shall be screened from
public view on all four sides.
5) That the Planning Commission will be given a copy of the lease
when it is signed and the Commission shall have the option to
cancel this resolution if this is not done within seven days.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
13599
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 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 Item 3, Petition 94-6-2-21 by Gibraltar
Construction Group, has been taken off the agenda.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is
approval of the minutes of the 686th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held on June 21, 1994.
Mr. Engehretson: We have had a transition on our membership during that time so
all members were present with the exception of Alanskas,
Piercecchi and Blomberg. That leaves three of us available to
approve these minutes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. L.aPine, it was
`.► #8-141-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 686th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on June 21, 1994 are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, rapine, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of
the minutes of the 687th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held
on July 26, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#8-142-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 687th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on July 26, 1994 are
hereby approved.
13600
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: None
`"` ABSTAIN: TaPine, Morrow
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit
Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive in
Section 17.
Mr. Engehretson: This was also a tabled item. We need a motion to remove it
from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-143-94 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the
installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at
16723 Comstock Drive in Section 17, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: This item was tabled to allow the petitioner time to screen
*tory his satellite dish, which is existing, a little better. Just
to give you a little more information, as I said before the
satellite dish is existing. It is 7 1/2 feet in diameter. It
is located on a 6 foot high pole and that would make the whole
antenna about 9 1/2 feet high. The petitioner has moved the
satellite dish closer to his house.
Mr. Engebretson: It is closer to the house and further away from the fence, if
I remember correctly Scott, and they have planted a tree that
shields the viewing of that dish from the street almost
totally, and that the dish is not visible at all from the
front of the property and very limited visibility from either
side. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Engehretson: It is concealed much better in this configuration than we
originally saw it. They did a good job there.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
13601
#8-144-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive
in Section 17 subject to the following condition:
`..
1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Louis C. Peppo,
received by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1994, and as
revised on August 16, 1994 to reflect the new location of the
dish, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it
will not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the
neighboring properties.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on this. This became a
very happy ending because of your suggestions to get back to
the installer and Mr. Peppo. I think it is best for Mr. Peppo
and best for the City the way that this has been resolved and
my compliments to you.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign
Permit Application by Continental Sign Company requesting approval
for one wall sign for the building unit located at 29596 Seven Mile
Road in Section 2.
'`.
Mr. Miller: This is a petition at Livonia Mall, which is located at Seven
Mile and Middlebelt. This unit happens to face Seven Mile.
They are requesting one wall sign at 46 square feet. They are
allowed one wall sign at 46 square feet so it is a conforming
wall sign.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what we like to see.
Mr. Morrow: Who will be the neighbors to the insurance company?
Mr. Miller: Arbor Drugs on the left hand side and the Secretary of State
on the right hand side and then Crowleys.
Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner have anything to add?
Paul Kadish: I am from Associated Group Underwriters. I have a request and
that is if you should see fit to approve our petition, I would
request a waiver of the 7-day waiting period so we can get it
directly to Council for their approval.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
`o.
13602
#8-145-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Continental
Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building
unit located at 29596 Seven Mile Road in Section 2 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Continental Signs, received by the
Planning Commission on August 1, 1994 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
the last tenant in the shopping center closes.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-146-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Sign Permit Application by Continental Sign Company
requesting approval for one wall sign for the building unit located
at 29596 Seven Mile Road in Section 2.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 94-8-8-14 by Don Summers requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to add to an existing office building located at
20010 Farmington Road in Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This is the Livonia Professional complex office buildings.
There are six separate buildings located on the site. To the
northeast corner at the rear of the building is the building
in question. They are planning on adding to the rear of their
building a 1400 square foot addition. Counting the existing
building, the entire building will be about 5,000 square feet.
Because of the addition, it will take out about 6 parking
spaces but the parking still is conforming to what they need.
They are adding a little landscaping to the parking lot to
beef up their landscaping. The elevation plan shows that the
new addition will match the existing materials so the building
will look like it has always been there.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, if this addition had been a part of the original site
plan, it would have likely been approved because it conforms
in every respect to all the ordinances and the proposal is
going to end up with an appearance that would cause one to
believe that it probably happened that way?
13603
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is this new addition visible from Farmington Road?
414r. Mr. Miller: I believe it would be because it is going to be in the rear
plus the building is so far back you can't see the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: I understand some of the comments here that there was some
question about maintenance of the current facility right now.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner might be able to answer that better. There was
a question at the study meeting that came up that the tenants
were unaware that they were in charge of taking care of their
area and now they are. They are in the process of taking care
of their area now.
Mr. Nagy: I think the problem area Mr. Summers indicated was the
greenbelt existing at the rear of the property. They weren't
aware of it because it looked like it was something in common
that all the tenants should have shared in it rather than
specifically this tenant. That was brought to the tenant's
attention that it was his responsibility because that is a
site condominium project as a result of it being upgraded and
refurbished and now they will maintain it. It isn't the whole
site. It was just that one portion of greenbelt at the
property line.
Mr. Engebretson: Another happy solution. Mr. Summers do you want to add
anything?
Don Summers: I just want to reiterate what John is saying. The tenants
that are in there, they have been in there since the center
was built. They really were unaware of what the greenbelt
consisted of and they have now signed a joint letter with the
rear two buildings and they are going to maintain that, and I
will be happy to present that letter to the Planning
Commission. All I can tell you is they will honor their
commitment I am sure. I have known them for 15 to 18 years.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Summers, what is that big pile of trash in the back with
the blue tarp over it?
Mr. Summers: That is going to be picked up and disposed of. The truck
broke down. It is a pile of debris that was taken out from
the greenbelt. What happened, Edison came through because of
the power line going through there. They cut a lot of trccs
and left them on the site and that had to be cleaned up. That
is what is piled up there now and it will be taken out of
there this week.
Mr. Alanskas: If this is approved this evening, your entire parking lot has
been patched and repaired but all the striping is gone
completely. Could you re-stripe the entire parking lot?
`.-
13604
Mr. Summers: I don't have that authority. I can tell you the parking lot
for this particular addition will be done.
Mr. Alanskas: If you could get that message back to them, I would appreciate
`)► it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-147-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 94-8-8-14 by Don Summers requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to add to an existing office building located at
20010 Farmington Road in Section 3 subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan dated August 1, 1994 by
Metropolitan Association in Pediatrics, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan dated August 1, 1994 by Metropolitan
Association in Pediatrics, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed addition;
"r.. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 688th Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 16, 1994 was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
>17
f Robert Alanskas, Acting Secretary
} t,
APrFsr: \\Li(l( („ 1,1 ��.
Jack Engebretgon, Chairman
jg