HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-01-25 13228
MINUTES OF THE 677th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
`fir.
On Tuesday, January 25, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 677th Regular Meeting 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 James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei Robert Alanskas William LaPine
Members absent: Raymond W. Tent
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda would be a motion by
the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether certain property located on the east side of Deering, north of
Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 should be rezoned from C-2
to RUF.
Mr. Engebretson: This is property down on Joy Road that apparently the staff
noticed that the zoning lines were not consistent with the uses and
it was suggested that we hold a public hearing to determine whether
or not those zoning districts should be squared off. Is that
essentially correct John?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no further discussion, I will look for a motion to
hold a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
13229
#1-17-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) 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 property located on the east
side of Deering, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36
'` from C-2 to RUF; 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.
Mr. McCann, 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 certain property located on the west side of Cardwell, north of
Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 should be rezoned from RUF
to R-1.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, where does this petition originate?
Mr. Nagy: This too is in that same area, just one street east of the area.
It is a continuation of our study to try to bring the zoning lines
and zoning districts more in conformance with the actual use of the
property in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: We are looking to set a public hearing to make that
determination.
`r• On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-18-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) 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 property located on the west
side of Cardwell, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36
from RUF to R-1; 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.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #959-93, to
hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain property
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and
Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 should be rezoned from
C-1 to P.
13230
Mr. Engebretson: This proposal comes to us from the City Council to again consider
changing zoning to more accurately reflect the use. This is at the
Seven Mile/Middlebelt intersection and I am looking for a motion to
set that public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-19-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution
#959-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) 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
property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile
Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from C-1 to
P and C-2; 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.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1018-93, to
hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain City-owned
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of
Fitzgerald, should be rezoned from PL to R-3.
Mr. Engebretson: This is the property that was previously designated for the
planned fire station on Seven Mile Road next to the Cagle's Market,
now called Galinda's Market, and the City Council has made the
determination that it probably would be best to combine this parcel
with some privately-owned property adjacent to this property for a
residential development. Again, we are looking for a motion to set
a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-20-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution
#1018-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) 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
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of
Fitzgerald from PL to R-3; 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.
13231
Mr. McCann, 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 the site of the former LaBordeaux Restaurant
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Henry Ruff and
Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 from C-2 to OS.
Mr. Engebretson: This proposal comes to us from the Roads Beautification
Committee, which has representation from the City Council, Planning
Commission, Inspection, Zoning Board of Appeals, and it is headed
by the Mayor. This property is in some disarray at the moment.
The building is in questionable condition and we are directed here
to consider changing the zoning to a more suitable use. I am
looking for a motion to set that public hearing.
Mr. Nagy: If you want to read a little further in your background notes, I
know I talked to you Mr. Chairman when we first put this item on
the agenda because as was pointed out it came to us by the Roads
Beautification Committee, subsequent to my discussion with you we
felt it advisable to, because of our knowledge of a pending sale on
the property, contact the real estate agent that was handling that
matter. Because of that contact there have been a series of
meetings now as we advised you in the background notes on that
subject relative to the rehabilitation of that property, using the
building for restaurant purposes, etc. As a result of those
discussions it is now felt advisable to hold this matter for
further discussion at this time pending the development of those plans.
We are just asking you to give us a little time to see if something
materializes based on this new sale of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy for pointing that out. I have to admit that I
'tsimy hadn't read the complete page as we conduct the meeting tonight. I
thought I had done the homework and had read what was then the
complete package as of earlier today. I had understood at that
time that even though we had the knowledge that the property was
under consideration for a sale that this may actually help
facilitate that sale along but having read the legal opinion here,
I think we would be well advised to take no action on this and see
how it develops. Since it is just a discussion I think we can
dispose of the matter.
Mr. LaPine: If somebody wants to purchase this and keep it a restaurant, why
would we rezone it from C-2 to OS.
Mr. Nagy: We had heard the property might be used for shopping center
purposes as well and more importantly we felt the building itself
had deteriorated to such a point that the building itself should
come down. That was really the focus of the Mile Roads
Beautification Committee in their deliberations on the property, so
just before the end of the year they made the decision to ask the
Planning Commission to look at the question of whether or not the
property should be rezoned from C-2 to office services. Now at the
beginning of the new year when we are beginning our business of
trying to move forward on those housekeeping chores, we decided to
put this item on the agenda. It is just by absolute coincidence
13232
that we put the item on the agenda, we hear there is a possible
sale, we contacted the owner, the Chrysler Financial Corporation,
they advised us they have entered into this agreement to sell the
property for a restaurant purpose, not a developer that is going to
take it and put it into a shopping center. They will actually use
the building for restaurant purposes. We had our Building
Department go out there during the intervening week to see if, in
fact, the building can be rehabilitated rather than torn down.
They believe that perhaps it can, given the right kind of
improvements to it. Also, the property owner has entered into a
non-refundable agreement with the purchaser, which happens to be a
Livonia resident. We decided the best interests of all concerned
is to hold back our attempts to rezone the property to give the new
purchaser time to come forward with his plans.
Mr. LaPine: John, don't you think for good zoning purposes the OS is a better
classification for that property than the C-2? Frankly, I just
can't see a restaurant there. We have had so many restaurants
there that never made it. To me, I think the ideal situation would
be to have it OS for some small type of office. I am just curious.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, this was a waiver use under the C-2 zoning, correct?
Now that the property has been abandoned for over a year they have
lost their waiver use, haven't they?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: So if they want to come back and use it for a restaurant, they have
to come back and start from scratch just as though it were a vacant
building so there is no inherent right to go back and use it as a
,` restaurant?
Mr. Nagy: We did advise them that they would have to file a waiver use
petition and get special zoning use approval to actually use it.
Mr. Morrow: One question to the staff. Do we have any sense of the timing on
this as far as when the decision would be made to move forward?
Mr. Nagy: We understand from meeting with the purchaser that the closing is
sometime in the early part of February.
Mr. Morrow: So it is not like something that is indeterminable?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. LaPine: John, when that building was rebuilt, remember when they had the
fire, is part of the original structure still there?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: It wasn't completely demolished?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. After the fire determination was made that it wasn't
destroyed more than 50% so they were allowed to leave it.
`rr..
13233
Mr. LaPine: The Inspection Department looked at the building and they feel
structurally it can be renovated and brought up to code?
Mr. Nagy: The outer walls seem to be decent. It is the roof that is the real
problem.
Mr. LaPine: The electrical and all that is still pretty good?
Mr. Nagy: Well that is all being inspected. With the plans that the new
purchaser has, it will be substantially renovated. It will be
changed significantly.
Mr. Engebretson: I might add that having served on that Roads Beautification
Committee for a couple of years now since its reinstatement, it
existed many years ago and has become active for the last couple of
years, I would just like to let Mr. LaPine know that of the
properties that are on our watch list that we keep quite a close
eye on, particularly those that have been abandoned like this, I
can tell you that our minutes will show that there is constant
activity on all of those properties. There is always a sale
pending but it is interesting that they hardly ever occur. This
may be a very serious one however, and I think as Mr. Nagy has
pointed out that there has been a substantial down payment. In
most instances these negotiations consist of ad infinitum
discussion and it keeps us off their back but this was intended to
stimulate some activity and frankly maybe it helps. It is
certainly not appropriate to go against the advice of our Law
Department so I guess we will just let this issue die. Is that
correct Mr. Nagy?
*o, Mr. Morrow: As I recall the Zoning Board had indicated they would have to build
a wall separating the commercial from the residential and as I
recall it was a pretty good number. Maybe the staff doesn't know
but is the current purchaser aware of that?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. We also advised him that subsequent to the action by the
Zoning Board in connection with the prior occupant of the structure
that we now have amended our zoning ordinance to allow a greenbelt
in lieu of the wall with approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council, so that issue is still out there and they will have
to decide when they bring forward their new waiver use petition,
they will have to address that issue of the greenbelt or wall and
provide for one or the other, but we did call it to their
attention.
Mr. Engebretson: So Mr. Nagy do we need a resolution to dispose of this item?
Mr. Nagy: I think at your direction, Mr. Chairman, we can just remove it from
the agenda.
Mr. Engebretson: Then it is done.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to Section 18.46 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
division or partitioning of lots.
13234
Mr. Engebretson: Again, we are looking to set a public hearing to deal with the
issue of how lots are split. Apparently the City Council has had
several instances where the lot splits were granted by the
Assessor's Department, which was within their jurisdiction, even
though the residents in the area apparently felt there was a
significant change to the character of the neighborhood as a result
of some of those matters having occurred in the past. The City
Council is now looking to eliminate those controversies and deal
with all lot splits. Did I state that correctly John?
Mr. Nagy: I think so.
Mr. Engebretson: All lot splits will go to the City Council without regard to
whether it is one or two and whether the resultant split lots
conform to the zoning district.
Mr. Nagy: The City Assessor will still be able to grant a split where the
parcel of record is being split into no more than two pieces, both
of which not only conform to the applicable zoning district
regulations that the property is subject to but also that the lots
themselves are consistent in character with the prevailing lot
sizes in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: The Assessor would make that determination then?
Mr. Nagy: Yes based upon reports from our department, Building and
Engineering. If, however, there was a lot of record being divided
into two lots, if they comply with ordinance requirements but are
clearly out of character with the prevailing lot size in the area
and there was a report to that effect submitted by City
departments, which is Planning, Engineering and Building, although
I think our department would play a principal role in that
determination, then in that case the City Assessor will not be able
to make the split and it will have to go on to the City Council
level. It isn't that the split would be denied, it is just that
the split would have to have a hearing before the City Council and
a determination made at their level as to whether or not that split
is consistent with the area and should be granted.
Mr. Engebretson: The way this proposed change reads the City Council then still
accomplishes their objective by continuing the authority of the
City Assessor but it has to be a clear case of the split not
changing the characteristic of the neighborhood.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Engebretson: All we are doing here is setting a public hearing date.
ON a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
111-21-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.46 of Zoning Ordinance 11543 pertaining to division or
partitioning of lots.
13235
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to Section 23.05 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the
required zoning sign.
Mr. Engebretson: I would consider this a housekeeping issue to make the sign
posting requirements consistent with other aspects of filing a petition
and advertising, etc. We need a motion to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-22-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543 relative to the required zoning
sign.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
X1543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-8-1
by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a one-story commercial building on property at 34957 Plymouth
Road in Section 33.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story commercial
building on a vacant piece of property, which is on the south side
of Plymouth Road just west of Wayne Road. The site plan shows that
the site will be deficient in parking and landscaping but the
petitioner has gone before the Zoning Board and was granted a
variance for both deficiencies. Out of the submitted elevation
plans the plan shows about two-thirds of the building will be
painted concrete block with the front elevation and a portion of
the west elevation synthetic plaster and split face block. The
petitioner is here and he can explain it a little better.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and expand on Scott's
comments.
Tom Crabill, Medora Building Company, 33640 Schoolcraft, Livonia: As shown on the
plan this is the Plymouth Road elevation and the top half of the
building will be dryvet, which is a synthetic plaster. We are
13236
showing a lighter color on the top half of the building with brown
accent bands and the bottom portion being split face block and
probably a bronze color tinted glass. We are going to return
approximately 40 feet around the west elevation with the same split
face and dryvet and then carry these accent bands through the
standard block along the west elevation and then the rear would
just be standard painted block and the east elevation the same.
Mainly the reason for that is because we are building at the zero
lot line on the east elevation and the view from Plymouth Road will
be blocked by the A-1 Transmission building.
Mr. Alanskas: With regards to the air conditioning units, would there be any on
the roof at all?
Mr. Crabill: Yes there would. We will have approximately an 18 to 20 inch
parapet wall and recess the air conditioning units to approximately
the middle of the building or as far back as we can.
Mr. Alanskas: It will still be screened completely?
Mr. Crabill: I shouldn't say it will be screened completely because I suppose if
you were traveling westbound on Plymouth Road you might be able to
see the top half of the unit similar to other buildings along
there.
Mr. Alanskas: With any commercial building we like to have screening around the
air conditioning units so it is screened completely.
Mr. Crabill: I suppose we could screen it on the roof with some screening
material. I have never done that before but I would be happy to
comply with whatever you would like us to do there. I would rather
not try to screen the units with block as in a parapet wall because
it would be excessive but when we submit our building drawings,
which would more and likely be tomorrow, I could add them.
Mr. Alanskas: Also, do you have any lighting in the front of the building to
light up the building at all?
Mr. Crabill: Yes there are mercury vapor lights. (He pointed them out on the
site plan. ) I don't think we have anything shown in the front
except there will be a recessed entrance area that will probably
have some lighting in the ceiling.
Mrs. Fandrei: How many doors do you have going to the building?
Mr. Crabill: There are two entrance doors. Hydra-Flex is the owner of the
building and they will be occupying approximately 75% of the
building. (He pointed out on the plan the area the owner will
occupy and the approximate area of a separation wall between them
and the retail user. ) (Mr. Crabill then pointed out the entrance
doors. )
Mrs. Fandrei: Will there be two doors on the north side?
Mr. Crabill: There will be a total of two doors on the north side so we will
have a total of six doors.
13237
Mrs. Fandrei: Your sales area is going to be partially occupied by somebody else,
right?
Mr. Crabill: Yes and this will be for lease. (He pointed out speculative lease
area)
Mrs. Fandrei: That is where most of the doors are, right?
Mr. Crabill: Yes, and for that reason. We don't know exactly what the use will
be so we have three doors proposed for that area.
Mrs. Fandrei: So they might also be closed in?
Mr. Crabill: It's very possible.
Mrs. Fandrei: I guess one of the things I was concerned about is all the handicap
spaces are up front. There are three of them and they are all up
front.
Mr. Crabill: This is specifically for a service entrance and this would be the
main entrance.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy would it be reasonable to have them move them a little
further east? They are all just immediately to the east of the
entrance.
Mr. Nagy: It is possible to do that.
Mrs. Fandrei: Like midway between the east and west part of that Plymouth Road
parking.
Mr. Crabill: I see no problem with that. I can make that change.
Mr. McCann: What kind of business is Hydra-Flex?
Mr. Crabill: I will turn that over to Mr. Plumly who is the owner of Hydra-Flex
and he can tell you a little more about the company.
Dave Plumly: I am the President of Hydra-Flex. We have been in business about
eight years and we distribute various fluid power products and
hydraulic fittings and hose to the automotive industry and some of
the larger machine tool builders in the metro Detroit area.
Mr. McCann: What type of parking requirements, I noticed you asked for a
reduction in the parking. Is that to allow yourself a bigger
building?
Mr. Plumly: Most of our business we deliver the products. The Plymouth Road
facility was nice for us because we do have some walk-in business
and although we are off the main road right now, that is part of
the business we think we would be able to expand significantly. I
don't think we would need quite as much parking as a strict retail
type business.
13238
Mr. McCann: Your landscaping was reduced to 8%. In looking at the drawings,
much of it is used up. Don't you think you would be better off
making the building look a little nicer and getting rid of some of
the space and maybe not having a tenant and having your own
building?
Mr. Plumly: This will be the fourth move for us in eight years and we wanted to
make as much use of the land as we could for our own space. I
think after this project is completed if you drive up Plymouth
Road and look at the existing buildings anywhere within a thousand
feet of there, you will think that is probably the nicest looking
building in terms of the landscaping surrounding it, I would
imagine.
Mr. McCann: Looking back at your landscape plan, you are going to put a row of
shrubs across the front of the building, and that is going to be
the extent of your landscaping?
Mr. Plumly: (He pointed out the landscaping on the plan) It all will be
sprinkled and look very nice.
Mr. Engebretson: How did you resolve the issue of the wall that was discussed at
great length at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting?
Mr. Crabill: As far as the screen wall at the rear of the property?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
Mr. Crabill: That was agreed, and it is shown on this plan, that we would
provide a six-foot brick textured masonry screen wall.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that what you agreed to with Mr. Stier, who testified at
the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting?
Mr. Crabill: I guess. I wouldn't know that.
Mr. Plumly: I think the problem with the fence, he liked the idea of us having
a cement fence on the back with 270 feet. His property extends
beyond our property line and I think his request was could we
extend that, and I can't speak for the other owner next door but we
told him that we would have a discussion to see if we could extend
the fence further and maybe share in the cost.
Mr. Engebretson: Now you are getting to my question. Did you have that
discussion?
Mr. Plumly: No.
Mr. Engebretson: When are you planning to do that? It looked to me from the
Zoning Board of Appeals minutes that that was a commitment they
were relying on and I don't think they were taking that as
something you would do sometime in the next four or five years.
Mr. Plumly: I didn't understand that as a commitment at the time but we can
certainly do that within the next week.
13239
Mr. Engebretson: I think that would be a good idea to do that and advise the staff
what the result of that is because whatever action we take here
tonight becomes effective seven days from now and it would be a
good idea to let us know how you are coming with that before we
approve the minutes, which is another way of saying let this
project loose. It does appear the dignitary that testified, and I
am referring to Jim Stier who also is running the control room back
there at the moment, was speaking on behalf of his parents, and I
have tried to get through these 11 pages of single spaced minutes
from the Zoning Board of Appeals but it is my impression that the
discussion that he had regarding the fence, that are a part of
these minutes, satisfied the neighboring residential property owner
which I think is important to follow up on. I agree with your
statement that once this building is finished it is going to be one
of the nicer additions in the immediate area.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a one-story commercial building on property at
34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as SD-1 dated 1/6/94 by
Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that the public sidewalk along
Plymouth Road shall be 6 ft. in width;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-2 dated 1/6/94 by Thomas W.
fir." Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
3) That the rooftop mechanical units shall be screened from public
view.
4) That the handicap parking spaces shall be located midway between
the east and west part of the Plymouth Road parking area.
5) That the petitioner has agreed to contact the adjacent property
owner with respect to continuing the existing screen wall so as to
provide for uniform screening for the adjacent residential
property.
6) That the matter of the wall shall be governed by the commitments
made at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and as referenced in
the Inspection Department's letter that even includes a commitment
on the petitioner's part to build an additional 20' of wall on Mr.
LaForest's south lot line.
as well as subject to the following additional condition, granted in the
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped areas,
including the adjoining right-of-way.
13240
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding my discussion on the wall and the property owner, the
only portion of the fence that we can really hold you accountable
for is the part that exists on your property but I would refer you
;Nam. to page 48 of the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals which was
a part of the public hearing process that they had on this matter
which did include some discussion relative to the fence, and while
you weren't making any commitments that you were going to resolve
this to Mr. Stier's satisfaction, you were at least going to try.
I think that is all I was really asking you to do in the spirit of
fulfilling a commitment.
Mr. McCann: I have a problem. Looking at the building and the plans that this
gentleman has brought before us, it is a nice building. I think as
you say when he puts it up it is going to look nicer than the
surrounding buildings around it, but in the long run if you are
looking ten years down the line plus, one of the problems we have
in the City is we have so many buildings that we are trying to
update, they don't have sufficient room for a greenbelt, they don't
have sufficient parking. In the long run I just don't believe by
giving this much of a deficiency in parking, this much of a
deficiency in greenbelt in a C-2 zoning, because we don't know what
is going to be down there ten years from now, with the lack of
parking and the lack of greenbelt that this is going to be one of
those problem sites that we are going to face ten years down the
line, fifteen years down the line because it just doesn't have the
ability to expand up to its potential use in a C-2 zoning. With
the current owner in there I understand it, but for the long-term
use I think it is a mistake.
'tar Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. McCann, do we have any other alternatives other than the
approval of the site plan? The ZBA has already granted the
waivers.
Mr. McCann: They have granted the waivers use but we are still planning it. We
have to look at it whether it is proper planning with the building
and I just believe in the long term it would be poor planning. It
doesn't have the capacity to accommodate the long-term, commercial
use. As the notes say for the safety and welfare of the City and
its residents to have both those limited aspects to use such a
large percent of the building on the property for future use as C-2
use I don't think is proper.
Mrs. Fandrei: You are saying a downsizing of the building is what you are looking
for?
Mr. McCann: Yes or a bigger lot for it. The way it is proposed I have a
problem with it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Then you are suggesting that perhaps we should continue to look at
this?
Mr. McCann: I would have no objection to that.
13241
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw my support on this petition.
I agree with what Mr. McCann has suggested and I think considering
that we have already, from what I am hearing, talked to the
petitioner about speaking with the east property owner, Mr.
Smr LaForest, and that hasn't been accomplished yet, I would like to
make a tabling resolution at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: We now have a substitute motion. The first motion died because
the support was withdrawn.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a one-story commercial building
on property at 34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans
`u. required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance //543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a one-story commercial building on property at
34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as SD-1 dated 1/6/94 by
Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that the public sidewalk along
Plymouth Road shall be 6 ft. in width;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-2 dated 1/6/94 by Thomas W.
Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
3) That the rooftop mechanical units shall be screened from public
view.
4) That the handicap parking spaces shall be located midway between
the east and west part of the Plymouth Road parking area.
5) That the petitioner has agreed to contact the adjacent property
owner with respect to continuing the existing screen wall so as to
provide for uniform screening for the adjacent residential
property.
13242
6) That the matter of the wall shall be governed by the commitments
made at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and as referenced in
the Inspection Department's letter that even includes a commitment
on the petitioner's part to build an additional 20' of wall on Mr.
LaForest's south lot line.
as well as subject to the following additional condition, granted in the
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped areas,
including the adjoining right-of-way.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas
NAYS: Fandrei, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-23-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a one-story commercial building
on property at 34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33 until the study meeting
of February 15, 1994.
*tow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: You have heard Mr. McCann's and Mrs. Fandrei's objections and if
there is anything you can do to deal with them to make this more
palatable, more acceptable, more appropriate. We would encourage
you to come to that study meeting of the 15th to help us work this
out so we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion from
everybody's point of view.
Mr. McCann: The staff is real good at reading our minds so if you want to get
with them beforehand, you will probably do yourself a big favor.
Mr. Engebretson: We are not looking to be adversial or to hold you up. We would
like to do this in a cooperative manner. We will offer you our
cooperation and we would certainly hope that you would do the same.
That would include talking to Mr. LaForest. That is not the major
issue however.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Grafix & Grafitti requesting approval for one wall sign
for the building located at 19046 Middlebelt Road in Section 12.
13243
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Middlebelt just south
of Seven Mile Road across from the Mid-Seven Shopping Center. It
is a two-unit building. One of the tenants is the Hillcrest TV
Service and the applicant is Savanna Reptiles & Fish. The frontage
of the building is 21 feet. Based on that they are allowed a 21
*tilu' square foot wall sign, which they are proposing. It is a
conforming sign.
Mr. Engebretson: We told the petitioner he could be excused from tonight's meeting
because it is a conforming sign.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-24-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Grafix & Grafitti
requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 19046
Middlebelt Road in Section 12 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Grafix & Grafitti, received by the Livonia
Planning Commission on 1/12/94, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
closing.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, did the lady representing the petitioner confirm that
the condition regarding the lighting was agreeable to them?
`` Mr. Nagy: Yes she did.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request for a
one-year extension of Petition 91-12-8-22 which received approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 to construct a
commercial building on property located at the southeast corner of Eight
Mile Road and Newburgh Road.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I understand we have a letter from Mr. Kunkel
requesting a one-year extension of his approved site plan to
construct a new building on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road
and Newburgh Road for his new Caddy Shack store. I see Mr. Kunkel
is in the audience. I will certainly let him speak for himself.
Robert Kunkel: I am President of Caddy Shack Golf Shops, 37101 West Six Mile Road,
Livonia. I think most of you know who I am. I hope this is the
last time we come in front of you. We are still excited about our
venture and we are looking forward to go forth. Some of the things
that we have done with the property I would like to bring you up to
date on.
13244
We have dispensed over $50,000 in improvements to the current
property. It may not look it but I would be happy to explain to
you what those are. We completely put a new roof on the building
and did it right. We replaced about eight 4x8 panels and put on
good quality shingles. We sandblasted the building and came up
with some very favorable results. The sandblasting gave us a real
nice appearance of that fieldstone. We removed all the old shrubs
around the house that were frankly overgrown and some were rotted.
We replaced those with new shrubbery. We brought in about six ton
of stone, large and small, and we beautified the corner sign with
shrubbery and some railroad ties. We brought in about 1,000 yards
of actual green putting grass that we put around that corner sign.
We did clear the property. We did leave over 25 trees. I know
that was a concern at some of our previous meetings that we try to
retain as much greenbelt as possible. All the trees along the
creek were maintained, back in about 15 feet from the creek. The
big weeping willow was retained. We spent about $4,000 just in
trimming the existing trees. There were a lot of branches that had
fallen over into the creek. We trimmed all the trees so we could
at least maintain them and watch them grow. We did bring in about
2,000 yards of fill dirt. We were able to get good fill dirt from
the Eight Mile project when they were moving sand so we had the
right amount of dirt there for the building site so we do not have
to bring in any additional. So the property has been cleared and
is ready to build.
The inside of the building we brought up to code. We have done all
new carpeting, painting. We have spent about $14,000 inside. We
now have those units in very nice shape and two of those are
`%or rented. We are retaining the major area for ourselves. We have
done some improvements.
The reason why we did not start the project, it was our intent to
start June of last year. We went to the City and petitioned for
all of our building permits. It was brought to our attention that
the original plan was approved with a septic field. It seems like
with some DNR concerns and where the new field would be it was, in
fact, possibly not going to be approved. We then researched with
the City's help and we have come up with an approved sewer system,
which means we will run a line up Newburgh, back south up Newburgh
for about 1,000 feet which will enable us to have a sewer system.
It is going to be about a $30,000 to $40,000 cost to us but in the
long run we prefer to have the sewer. That also will mean we will
take the current septic field on the house off that system and put
it on the sewer system. That was finally approved with designs and
additional $2200 for sewer fees and architect fees. We got in late
August our final building permit with the help of the City. At
that time we went out for a commercial appraisal, which was
favorable. It was brought to our attention we would be building
over the winter months. It would put us possibly into a Spring,
April build completion. That is not a good time to move a golf
shop. Therefore, we chose to wait until June of this year, which
is a more perfect timing for us. Frankly, based upon the winter we
are having it was probably smart that we did not start the building
`ft.
13245
of that property. We have, with the building permits and with the
financing in place, we now feel that we are ready to build in June
and we would like to build the existing building. We have no
changes to it.
'glow There have been some favorable things happen since I last talked to
you. We have done something different inside the building. We
have been able to procure 28 showrooms from 28 of the major
manufacturers, which is going to add an uniqueness to the store.
Basically what that will be is about a 12x12 section all around the
inner walls where Titleist, etc. will display all of their goods in
their entirety. Each showroom would show all their clubs, all of
their bags. They would have a VCR and a TV where a customer can
come up and push a button and visually see everything that is new
about the golf equipment. We think it is kind of a unique concept.
We, at this time, have a letter of intent from all 28 manufacturers
so maybe in waiting we have come up with some additional advantages
for the shop. That is basically why we are looking for an
extension so we can continue this project.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding your concept of having these multiple display areas, it
is my recollection that in the original plan that you presented,
you were going to use those spots for storage of various major
manufacturers like you mentioned, but it now sounds like you are
taking it into the next level.
Mr. Kunkel: We are going to maintain the storage but the clubs will be on
display and stored. In essence, if you had 20 sets of clubs, they
would be displayed. The front box would be open so they would be
on display. All the brochures would be there. The TV would be
`ow there. It was just trying to utilize a more comfortable space but
still have that storage.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you accomplished the original objective and made
it more attractive.
Mr. Kunkel: It is very unique and I would like to say that it was an original.
We have gone to over 30 golf shops all over the country. That
concept really was in a shop in Orlando which took advantage of all
the tourists and they had the showroom. They did not do the
storage in conjunction with the showroom nor did they do the TV.
We took that idea and expanded. This will be kind of similar to
Orlando but it will be unique in the technology and the storage.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Kunkel, if you start in June, when would you have the
completion of the building.
Mr. Kunkel: Our builder has indicated we would have the building complete on
November 1st, which would be an ideal time for us to move out of
our current building. I have signed an extension with
Stuart-Frankel through year end, which is perfect timing for us.
We would hope to move in in November, have a grand opening after
Thanksgiving for the Christmas season and be in operation on or
before December 1st.
"%o, On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
13246
#1-25-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve a
one-year extension of Petition 91-12-8-22 which received approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 to construct a
commercial building on property located at the southeast corner of Eight
,taw Mile Road and Newburgh Road.
Mrs. Fandrei: I just want to explain why I will not support this. I do not share
the Chairman's enthusiasm for the golf shop. Being a former
Historical Commissioner and extremely familiar with the area, I
haven't felt good about this proposal from day one and I cannot
support this. I just had to explain that.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Fandrei
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 677th Regular Meeting
held on January 25, 1994 was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/James C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: 11' Olt U^,.� ri�
Jack' Engebre son, Chairman
jg