Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-09-21 17119 MINUTES OF THE 792m1 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 21, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 792nd Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons H. G. Shane Members absent: None Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight,the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-10 by T. Rogvoy Associates on behalf of Millennium Park proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road east of Middlebelt in the North 1/2 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2. Mr. Marvin Walkon has requested that he be moved to the end of the agenda as he also has a ZBA meeting to attend at the same time. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-1-11 by Leland & Noel Bittinger proposing to rezone property located south of Five Mile Road on the east side of Fairfield Avenue between Hubbard Road and Brookfield Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22 from R-7 to R-1. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 17120 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence which is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated August 27, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time but would like to advise the developers that sanitary and water utilities on Brookfield will require extension. The water main on Brookfield is not as shown on the Taweek Assoc. P.C. Plan. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? James Szkrybalo, 38777 W. Six Mile Road, Suite 108, Livonia, Michigan Mr. McCann: It is my understanding that it is your request that this petition be withdrawn tonight so that you can re-file and re-advertise for RC instead of R-1. Is there a motion to do so? On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was r.. #9-157-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 21, 1999 on Petition 99-8-1-11 by Leland &Noel Bittinger proposing to rezone property located south of Five Mile Road on the east side of Fairfield Avenue between Hubbard Road and Brookfield Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22 from R-7 to R-1,the Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 99-8-1-11. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. For anyone in the audience with regards to this petition tonight, be advised that the petitioner decided to withdraw the petition. He would like to come back under RC which is residential condominium and therefore he will have a more restrictive zoning. He will have to re-advertise for a public hearing. There will be the same notice that was given out for this for the RC. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-1-12 by Bill Brown Ford proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road east of Sears Drive between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26 from M-1 to C-2. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 17121 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated September 1, 1999, and reads as follows: "Please be advised the legal description provided with the above referenced petition does NOT meet with the approval of this office. The description miscloses by 0.48 inches an approximate 1,900 feet circuit which is over the 1 in 5000 allowed by survey standards. However, the legal description provided does generally describe the property in question and may be used for the purpose of this petition. There were no other engineering problems detected and we have no other objections to the petition. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated September 21, 1999, which reads as follows: "At the 99th meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority held September 16, 1999, it was: #99-49 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority dos hereby support the request for change of zoning from M-1 (Light Industrial) to C-2 (General Commercial) in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 26 by Bill Brown Ford and located at 30400 Plymouth Road(the former Terrace Theater property)." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, P.R.D.A. Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Bob Gunnigle,32222 Plymouth Road, Livonia. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about the change of zoning and what the proposed use is going to be? Mr. Gunnigle: Yes. As you know we have been privileged to use the George Burns Theatre to display vehicles and that has been a wonderful thing for us. Unfortunately for us the property is being developed and is going another direction and we understand we are going to lose that display. We have been looking for sometime for an alternate display space and the Terrace property became available. We talked to the Terrace people and looked at the property and decided it would be a wonderful place to display vehicles. We also are a large dealership for Ford and we lease a lot of vehicles for Ford. Sixty to 70%of our business is leasing. These leased vehicles come back after two or three years and have become a problem for Ford for disposing of and they have asked dealers especially large dealers, to take a more active role in merchandising these vehicles. One of the intended uses to help us pay for the Terrace property would be to create a second used car operation there. It would also provide us an opportunity to take the large portion of the building and convert it into a body shop operation freeing up a lot of space at our current location which would help us better service our customers. Mr. McCann: Do you have a plan there? 17122 Mr. Gunnigle: What I have here is a landscape plan. I know this is difficult to see. I used some of my kindergarten training here and I colored a little bit of it in this morning. All the green areas are existing landscaped areas. What we proposed to do is to go into these areas and refurbish them extensively. This will constitute about 12%of the property being developed and landscaped. We know the objective is about 12%. We would like to handle the landscaping in the currently prescribed area because as I look as the property, and I know you all have been by to look at it, it is under wonderfully developed asphalt. It is a very expensive process to go and cut asphalt, run new water lines to any new irrigated area so what we propose to do is to handle the landscaping by very intently developing what is existing. I have talked to the PRDA. The PRDA will work with us on this. They are going to put some trees in front in the boulevard. They also intend to put some nice driveway entrance stone there to help brighten up and make the appearance of that piece of property of what would be respectful of the area. Mr. McCann: You said your goal is 12% or 15%? Mr. Gunnigle: What we would like to do is, rather than go to all the expense of tearing up all this wonderful asphalt, which is very expensive, and having to create vegetation, landscaping elsewhere, which won't really enhance the appearance of the property. What we have done here is draw up a proposal that has 185 pieces of shrubbery going in, all the trees that are there will be maintained. Anything that needs to be replaced, will be replaced and in general will be a first class appearance. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us what you are intending to do with the building, How much you are keeping and what changes you are planning? Mr. Gunnigle: We are working with an architect right now so I can't give you specifics, but in general, the front of the building which used to be the lobby, would be for used vehicle sales. The north part of the building will be the body shop operation. Mr. McCann: To the staff, he will have to come back for site plan approval, correct? Mr. Nowak: Since the proposed use is a car dealership, it would require waiver use approval which would also involve approval of the site plan. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Can you give us an approximate number of vehicles of how many will be stored here? The same number as is stored on Farmington now? Mr. Gunnigle: Approximately. Yes. Mr. LaPine: So a lot of those are going to be back? Because you've got so much frontage on Plymouth and Farmington and here you only have frontage on Plymouth Road so most of these vehicles are going to be located farther back than they are on the current location now, is that correct? 17123 Mr. Gunnigle: Our intention is to use both sides of the property for new vehicle display and the center and front for used vehicles. Mr. LaPine: Is this strictly going to be used for a body shop for vehicles or is there going to be heavy trucks or anything like that? Mr. Gunnigle: Personal use vehicles. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Because of the high ceiling it lends me to think it might be something else. The way that building has the slant floors I assume that is quite an undertaking to renovate that. Mr. Gunnigle: It is. It would have to be leveled out. Mr. LaPine: But it is still cheaper than demolishing the building and starting from scratch. Mr. Gunnigle: Oh yes. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mrs. Koons: A little more clarification on the landscape plan. You are going to keep it at 12.5% and add more vegetation, is that what you are saying? r,.,. Mr. Gunnigle: Yes. That is what I would like to do rather than to get into this wonderful asphalt and disturb it, it would be a very expensive procedure and I'm not sure we would gain much. With the approval of the Commission what I would prefer to do is a more thorough dense presentation of the existing area. I have the support of the PRDA and they going to make sure the boulevard out there looks good too. Mrs. Koons: As you work on your building with some of the renovations you are going to make, is there any what you can do more in the front of the building? Mr. Gunnigle: There is a little bit there right now, it is hard to see but there is some vegetation right here and right along this side of the building. Mrs. Koons: Isn't that sidewalk rather than asphalt though right up next to the building? Mr. Gunnigle: Actually, there is a little row of shrubs right here and we are going to refurbish all of that and the same for this area right here. Mrs. Koons: Can we make it a bigger row of shrubs? Your point of the asphalt, there is not asphalt up to the building, correct? Mr. Gunnigle: That is cement, correct. We would certainly take a look at that. We want it to look nice. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. 17124 Mr. Piercecchi: Although the petition before us tonight refers to only rezoning from M-1 to C- `'m. 2, I want to express my appreciation of seeing your tentative site plan. As you stated, currently you have 12% of the area is landscaped and as you know our ordinance requests 15%. The PRDA is going to get involved, do you have any idea what percentage they will bring that up to? Mr. Gunnigle: I do not. Mr. Piercecchi: Your current dealership is very well landscaped and one thing I think that adds a lot of attractiveness to your dealership is between your two curb cuts and you have two, maybe even more there, the flower beds in between those curb cuts, I think that adds just a little bit of class to that landscaping. Have you considered anything of that nature? Mr. Gunnigle: I should have mentioned that. This entire length here where it is all brown is flowers. Mr. Piercecchi: But the total is 12%. Now according to our write-ups here you are a little bit short also in parking but with that vast area there is no problem making that 37 units up, is that correct? Mr.Gunnigle: That is correct. Not a difficulty at all. Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you. Good luck Mr. Shane: What you are saying is that you are going to leave the landscaped area, which is a total of 12%, but you are going to increase the landscaping in those areas, is that correct? Mr. Gunnigle: Yes sir, that is what we would like to do. Mr. LaPine: The landscape areas there now, are those irrigated? Mr. Gunnigle: Yes it is. I went out and looked at it today, Mr. LaPine, to make sure but it looks like it hasn't been operated for a while so we will do a considerable expense, I am sure, getting that back in gear. Mr. LaPine: Mrs. Koons brought up a point, maybe if you can't dig up the concrete you could put some barrels or flower pots of some type of thing in there to help. Mr. Gunnigle: You mean closer to the building? Mr. LaPine: Right. Mr. Gunnigle: We'll certainly consider that. 17125 Mr. LaPine: That is an alternative that I think I could accept. I am happy that with the theater building getting run down that Bill Brown is taking over. I think it is going to be an asset that is going to help out Plymouth Road. Mr. Gunnigle: Thank you very much. Mr. Alanskas: On the plan they show three planters already. Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing. Do you have anything else you wish to say Mr. Guenego? Mr. Gunnigle: No sir. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I think this will be a great improvement on Plymouth Road and working closely with the Plymouth Road Development Authority is a real asset to our community and I want to approve that resolution. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was #9-158-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 21, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-8-1-12 by Bill Brown Ford proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road east of Sears Drive between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26 from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-8-1-12 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding and established uses of the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on other commercially zoned properties along Plymouth Road in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the re-use of the subject property in accordance with uses permitted under the C-2 district regulations; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional commercial services to serve the public. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 17126 Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mrs. Koons: Just as we received a letter from the PRDA I would wonder if staff could send them a letter regarding our thoughts on landscaping since it isn't contained in our motion. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-7-2-24 by H & M Deli & Catering, requesting waiver use approval to expand the floor area and seating capacity of a restaurant located within an existing building (31193 Plymouth Road) on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Denne Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Division of Police, dated August 16,1999, which reads as follows: "In reply to the captioned petitions, the Livonia Police Traffic Bureau has no concerns or recommendations regarding the site plans." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The second item of correspondence is from the Engineering Division, dated August 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "Please be advised the legal description provided with the above referenced petition does NOT meet with the approval of this office. The description miscloses by 1.58 feet in a 1,793.97 foot circuit which is over the 1 in 5000 allowed by survey standards. Furthermore, the description included right-of- way which is then excluded by a general statement at the end of the legal description, this generalized exclusion is also unacceptable to the Engineering Division. There were no other engineering problems detected and we have no other objections to the petition. When the petitioner has submitted a revised legal description please resubmit it to this office for approval. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The third item of correspondence is from the Fire and Rescue Division, is dated August 17, 1999, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to expand the floor area and seating capacity of a restaurant located within an existing building. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth item of correspondence is from the Inspection Department, dated August 23, 1999, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 9, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking areas need to be repaired, resealed and restriped. (2) The approach off Denne is in need of repair. (3) The protective wall at the southwest corner of the property has been removed. The Inspection Department has issued a violation to replace 17127 the wall or petition the Planning Commission to amend the approved site plan." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Lastly, we have a letter from a neighboring resident dated August 11, 1999, which reads as follows: " This is in regards to the letter that was sent in regards to the expanding of H & M Deli and Catering. This does not bother me at all. Also you had told me on the phone that the problem with the wall that was taken down would also be heard at this meeting, nothing in this notice says anything about the wall! As I am the one living next to "parking lot" I would like the wall put back up. I really don't think anyone on the Commission would want to come out their back door and the first thing you see is an enclosed dumpster with the trash which doesn't get in there in your yard, also the trees are ugly and drop pine cones and needles in my yard also there are bees nest in the pine needles. People cut across my lawn since the wall isn't there and I don't feel since it is a zoning law that one shouldn't be put back up and if you'll look in the records when Mr. Parz first got that piece of land that is called a parking lot I had to go the City Council meeting to have one put up. I really don't think it is fair that I should have to put up with this again. Thank you." The letter is signed by Barbara J. Smith who gives her address as 11360 Merriman Road. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Hani Ganora, 34372 Claudia Court, Westland, Michigan. �... Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your petition and the reasons you brought it before us tonight? Mr. Ganora: I have a 350 sq. ft. restaurant and during the lunch hour it gets real crowded and real busy so we just needed more dining area. I talked to Mr. Parz about the place next door. It is more convenient for my customers. My place is very narrow and I just need more space. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Is a wall required back there? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. LaPine: And there is not a wall there now? Mr. Nowak: There was a wall there originally but a portion of the wall was taken down and removed. Mr. LaPine: So that is Mr. Parz's responsibility, correct? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Have we issued him a violation or anything yet? 17128 Mr. Nowak: I believe the Inspection Department has issued a violation and they are awaiting for the outcome of this petition before they proceed on it. Mr. LaPine: On your diagram you gave us here, these little things here, little squares here, I assume are tables. Are these tables or are they booths? Mr. Ganora: So far they are tables. Mr. LaPine: You show three, three,three. To me you could move that table out and you would have four. Mr. Ganora: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I count all these tables and I could you could have 80 seats in there because as long as there are tables, you say you've got two here and two here. If you were to put three here, you would have one, two,three. Move that table out a little you could have four people here. Are you just going to have the 42 plus the 20, for 62 seats here or are you going to have more than 62 seats here? Mr. Ganora: The 62 seats. That is what I want to have. Mr. LaPine: If you get real crowded you are not going to shove a table out and give me another chair here and there? Mr. Ganora: No. A lot of people, when the seating is crowded they take it out. Mr. LaPine Just one other question, Mr. Chairman. Have you experienced any problem there with parking for your customers? Mr. Ganora: No. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: You realize when we discussed this particular petition at study, the parking lot area was mentioned and the severity of the damage and the resealing and the restriping of it is required. I would like to ask the gentleman, have you discussed this with the landlord about fixing that parking lot? Because I am quite sure that there will be some ruling by this group that this parking lot has to be changed. In the center section there was a big hole there when I was there. Mr. Ganora: I think he has fixed that one big hole. He said he was going to redo the parking lot and stripe it in the near future. Mr. Piercecchi: I am sure it will be conditioned that the parking lot be repaired and resealed. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Parz is here if you would like to ask him, the landlord. r.. Mr. Piercecchi: Then let us have the landlord come down and assure us that that will be rectified. 17129 Ron Parz, 31153 Plymouth Road. It's good to see you Shane. Let me take care of a couple of problems for you. A contract has been signed. I think the paving is going to start sometime at the end of this week or the first of next week to take care of that. Secondly, let me correct something over here that the Planning Department has misled you on. That wall was never approved when that shopping center was built. That wall was later adapted. The City of Livonia asked me to take over that piece of property that was with the City. I agreed to do that, but never to put a wall. That site plan was approved without that wall there because that property did belong to the City of Livonia when that original site plan was approved. It wasn't until a year later that the Planning Department asked me to put up some type of wall because the lady was raising a ruckus over there. I am in the process now of having the architectural redone for that particular location. We will landscape it. We had a choice of either putting up a wall or putting up a four foot high berm. As you will see there is a four foot high berm there right now and it is landscaped. Again, my original understanding and original agreement of taking that property that the City owned at one time that was full of broken down building and foundations that were left there. I just took it in order to clean up the Merriman Road area. So please if you would look at the records, you will find that that site plan was not approved with that. O.K.? Mr. McCann: We'll check into that and if the Inspection Department has issued a violation, it's based on the fact that it was in the site plan was there so that is something you need to take up with the Inspection Department. Mr. Parz: We have taken that up. Mr. Mandell, who is representing me both as the attorney and as the original architect and planner of the site, has the original site plan and the site plan did not have that wall there because that piece of property was originally City property. Mr. McCann: Did you build the wall? Mr. Parz: I built the wall later, only at the request of the Planning Department. Mr. McCann: That would have been a modification of the site plan and once it is there you still have to maintain it though. Mr. Parz: Well, you know something, the modification of the site plan was never formally placed through this Planning Department. We had a choice of either putting up a four foot berm landscaped, which the City asked me to do originally when I first put up the site. I did put up that four foot berm. I did put up the landscaping. I did sprinkle it and I do maintain it. Later, much later, after the center was operating and building over there for at least a year, later the City came up and asked me to put up some type of barrier between they and the property owner. Mr. McCann: I understand your frustration, if you have it, but please deal with this issue. 17130 Mr. Parz: First off, let me assure you that the parking lot is to be paved and it will be repaved within two weeks. Let me assure you that as I came here last year you asked me to get the parking lot fixed up and I told you the program that I was doing. I fixed the signs out there and replaced them. I have done some landscaping out there and continue to do that and we are now in the process of repairing the parking lot and the time that you have gone over there and seen the holes, probably the repairs that we are making in the anticipation of the catch basin, you have probably seen holes, square holes, 8 x 8, 10 x 10. We put concrete around those in anticipation of putting an inch- an inch and a half of pavement in those areas that were extremely damaged by the heavy trucks. We are going to dig those out and replace those. Mr. McCann: And you are going to double stripe them per the new ordinance? Mr. Parz: Absolutely. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Parz, while you are up there, would you explain the way the wall goes now and then when you come to the people's property it juts out another 2-1/2 feet in your property, where the berm is. Did you do that for the people there? Mr. Parz: I did that for a couple reasons. One, after we built the dirt berm over there and landscaped, the lady who owned that house presented such a problem to the City, they asked me to go out there and put the wall up. The wall I put up is nothing more than 3-1/2 foot, maybe four foot in height, where normally a wall is required is six foot. What I did do is I brought that piece of property, that piece of wall into my property. Had I put that wall where it was suppose to go the people would have to remove 2-1/2 feet of their driveway. Their driveway sits 2-1/2 feet into my property. They would have to remove 2-1/2 feet of driveway on top of that. Probably a good six inches of landscaping that is there. You know something, trying to be a good neighbor in getting rid of this stuff, that is what we did. Mr. Alanskas: So at this time this is the property that you own but you are letting them use? Mr. Parz: Yes. I own the property and I am letting them use it but in the event they push the wall, they are going to have to give me a staked survey. I requested the City to do this. I requested them to give me a staked in-ground survey, remove their landscaping and remove their driveway. Mr. Alanskas: I was out there, as you know, a couple of days ago and it is a gorgeous berm already and I am sure everybody has been out there but those two pine trees are very nice and you are going to add additional plants. Mr. Parz: The plan is coming in probably within the next week or so. Seymour happens to be sick and Seymour happened to be out of town. But he has put together a plan. What we are going to do is place in there probably an additional eight more pine trees so that you really have a screening wall besides a four foot high landscaped berm. 17131 Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Noe, Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, sir do you have any last comments? Mr. Ganora: I really need to expand. Mr. McCann: You need to expand for business. O.K. I have one last question. Do you do a large dinner crowd or is it mostly lunch? Mr. Ganora: Just lunch. We cater out. No, we don't do any large lunches. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #9-159-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 1999, on Petition 99-7-2-24 by H & M Deli & Catering, requesting waiver use approval to expand the floor area and seating capacity of a restaurant located within an existing building (31193 Plymouth Road) on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Denne Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-7-2-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: r,,, 1) That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 62 seats; and 2) That the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated August 23, 1999 from the Inspection Department shall be corrected to that department's satisfaction: that the parking areas shall be repaired, resealed and restriped - that the approach off Denne Avenue shall be repaired - that the missing section of the protective wall, where a portion of the wall has been removed at the southwest corner of the property, shall be rectified by either replacing the wall or by petitioning to amend the approved site plan to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall 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 Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 17132 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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Parz: Can I tell you on the case of the approach. The approach is the responsibility of the City of Livonia and further investigating it, they went out and repaired it just a couple of days ago. Mr. Alanskas: So that has already been done? Mr. Parz: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I have one question to the Inspection Department. Am I right in my thinking here that in number 3 where the missing section of the protective wall, he has to either repair that wall or else he has to come back to the Planning Commission and we have to amend the original site plan to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the wall, is that correct? Mr. Nowak: Yes. It abuts single family residential at that point so he will be required to erect a wall along that line or come in to have a greenbelt substituted for the wall. Mr. LaPine: So he has to come back to us and get our approval to amend the original site plan to eliminate the wall and put in a greenbelt? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. McCann: We have to look at the original site plan and see what it says, number one; and two, if the City owned the property, of course they built the wall afterwards. We'll let you guys figure that one out. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-2-25 by Summit Sports, Inc. d/b/a Play it Again Sports, requesting waiver use approval to operate a new and used sporting goods store within an existing building on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 17133 Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Fire & Rescue, dated August 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a new and used sporting goods store within an existing building." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second item is a letter from the Engineering Division dated August 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith: "The North 313.0 feet of the West 439.74 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, except that part thereof described as beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 36 and proceeding thence east along the north line of said section 300.0 feet; thence south 33.0 feet; thence southerly along a curve concave to the southeast radius 267.0 feet a distance of 298.65 feet; thence due south 129.04 feet; thence west 60 feet to the west line of Section 36;thence along said west line 313.0 feet to the point of beginning, also except that part thereof lying within the north 60 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second item of correspondence is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated August 25, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 9, 1999,the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The follow is noted. �. Some of the parking areas are being resurfaced. The parking areas that have not been resurfaced need to be resealed and the whole parking area needs to be double striped." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Steve Kopitz, 790 Industrial Court, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. We are requesting to open up a Play it Again Sports store at that location. Mr. McCann: Do you have a drawing of your plan or any changes to the building that you are planning to make? Mr. Kopitz: There are no changes other than putting slat wall up and fresh carpeting in the space. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: Do you plan any out door sales, storage or display of merchandise? Mr. Kopitz: No, everything is inside the space. Mr. Shane: A question to the staff. Does the site now meet the parking requirements? 17134 Mr. Nowak: It is slightly deficient based on the size of the building. The total number of parking spaces required is 147. The number of parking spaces existing on the °�- site is 126 which is 21 spaces deficient. Mr. Shane: Is this a result of the restriping of the parking lot? Mr. Nowak: No,they restriped it the way it was. This is the way it has been for years. Mr. Shane: So it is a preexisting condition? Mr. Nowak: It is a pre-existing condition as far as the number of spaces. Mrs. Koons: To the staff. What are the regulations for a sign here? Mr. Nowak: As far as the wall sign, he would be allowed one wall sign equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage. His unit has 50 feet of frontage so he would be allowed a 50 sq. ft. sign. Mrs. Koons: And we don't have to approve that? Mr. Nowak: This is in a City control area but if he is simply replacing an existing sign... Scott could help us with this? Mr. Miller: There is a master sign package for that wall so long as he conforms, it has .■„ already been approved by the City of what he can have. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Kopitz, are you aware of that? Mr. Kopitz: No I am not but we will stay within the 50 sq. ft. That is no problem. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chair, I realize that we have a pre-existing condition here on some of the parking and I notice from our notes from the staff that the handicap side deficiencies have been corrected? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: What about the length of the 15 footers in that parking lot? Are they going to be modified also? Mr. Nowak: No. It was difficult to do anything about that because this is a situation where you have an isle which faces on both sides, by our zoning ordinance, you would need 62 feet and they only have 52 feet. Without losing some spaces or completely redesigning the parking spaces and probably losing some spaces, you couldn't do anything with the depth but the width of the spaces are all 10 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: That may be true that we may have trouble doing something about it but you know there are a lot of cars that over 180 inches in length and that is most of our cars. My car is 215 inches which is 35 inches longer than that parking space is 17135 going to be. Is there any other way to modify that? These are dead end, straight-in? If they were on an angle parking, would that resolve part of the problem? Give us some more spaces, more units? Mr. Nowak: These are angle spaces. They are 60° spaces. Actually not all of the spaces are 15 feet in length. I actually went out to the site and measured the length of the spaces, some are 15 feet, some are 17 feet and some were almost 18 feet in depth. I couldn't find any that were actually conforming as far as being 20 feet in length. Mr. Piercecchi: Because this is a pre-existing condition sir, are our hands tied to bringing those up to the current ordinance standards? Mr. Nowak: I know the Inspection Department would consider that a pre-existing condition. If this were a permitted use, they would have allowed the use to go in without having any type of variance for deficient size or number of parking spaces. The waiver use gives us some leverage but I am not quite sure if anything can be done as far as getting deeper parking spaces without completely redesigning and he may lose some parking spaces. Mr. Piercecchi: Obviously that parking area goes back quite a few years? Mr. Nowak: Yes. N.. Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, on your other locations when is your busiest time of business? Is it on a Saturday or evenings? Mr. Kopitz: Saturdays and Sundays would be our busiest days typically, and then sometime right after school or right after dinner. Mr. Alanskas: This size building that you are attempting to get, your other stores, are they this same size or bigger or smaller? Mr. Kopitz: I have one other store, 7,500 sq. ft., I have one other location that is 7,500 sq. ft. Most of my other ones range between 4,000 and 5,000 sq. ft. and I have two that are smaller than that. Mr. Alanskas: In you other locations when you are busy, do you have a problem as far as not being able to take care of your customers for parking? Mr. Kopitz: No,the other locations have not had that problem at all. Mr. Alanskas: So it is fair to say you possibly won't have a problem here with parking either? Mr. Kopitz: Our space doesn't generally require much parking. Ten to 12 people in our store would be busy. So unlike a restaurant or some other business we generally don't use a lot of parking spaces. 17136 Mr. Alanskas: Let me ask you when you are dealing with athletics and kids and you take in '41•11, used equipment, like say hockey pads or suits, are they cleaned before you try to resell these? Mr. Kopitz: No, we generally only take in what we consider good selling merchandise. If it comes in unacceptable, we simply wouldn't buy it. Mr. Alanskas: What do you term unacceptable? Mr. Kopitz: Equipment that is not safe is clearly unacceptable. Equipment that is too dirty or undesirable or too smelly. Mr. Alanskas: So if you put it on the shelf, it is not going to have an odor? You make us assured that you do not put things on the shelf that are contaminated. Let us say if a child had head lice, for example, and he is going to sell you a product and you are going to buy it, would you inspect it before you buy it and make sure you don't have a problem as far as any bugs or whatever in the equipment? Mr. Kopitz: Absolutely. Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, I will go the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Ed Azar, 28860 Kirkside Lane, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I am a representative for John Winkler who owns this shopping center. I am up here basically due to the concerns in reference to parking. First of all, Ann Arbor which is one of the consultants for the City, they are reviewing all four corners here, basically for landscaping, updating and considerable amount of money with brick paving and so forth, I don't know if you are aware of it or not. It has gone to a great length and I believe very shortly it will be resolved. But with reference to the parking, I don't know where you picked up 15 feet, the architect, or surveyor, that did that for us basically started out with the wrong dimensions and I don't know if that is the same one. Is that the one that you received? You are referring to 15 feet deep? Mr. Nowak: That was an actual measurement prior to the restriping. Mr. Azar: I can't really answer that since I haven't measured it but our concern has always been with parking into the center. Nothing to do with meeting the ordinance or not. It is just good business practice. As a result when we were approached by the tenant proposed here, we know of their operations. We know their parking normally is no where near what normally a retailer would use because we have had several users that wanted to enter into this facility such as the Blockbuster type videos and so forth and that would be competing directly with the restaurants and so forth. So for that reason we have avoided a lot of different tenants. In fact the previous tenant that was in here was a furniture store and 17137 unfortunately was not the right kind of operator and we had to give him notice to vacate. Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was #9-160-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 1999, on Petition 99-8-2-25 by Summit Sports, Inc. d/b/a Play it Again Sports, requesting waiver use approval to operate a new and used sporting goods store within an existing building on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 36, be approved subject to the condition that there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise, 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 Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the r,.�, 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. McCann: Is anyone here for Rogvoy and Associates on behalf of Millennium Park? Seeing no one, will the secretary go ahead and call that item as the last item of the Public Hearing. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item is Petition 99-6-1-10 by T. Rogvoy Associates on behalf of Millennium Park proposing to rezone property located east of Middlebelt Road and south of Schoolcraft Road in the North 1/2 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2 Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated August 16, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has 17138 reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the `4.- site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner in the audience? I don't believe so. The petitioner did tell us he would be before the ZBA this evening. For the audience information the reason that they are asking for this parcel to be rezoned from M-2 to C-2 is that it was due to an inaccurate legal description. This land was not included in the 98-6-1- 9 petition which was approved by City Council and Planning Commission therefore,this is kind of a clean up act. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing and a motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a comment. I would like to bring everybody up to speed on this one. Originally, Mr. Chairman, their petition was 64.9 acres. With this new acreage, it is more than just an accounting procedure, it actually increases the C-2 area by 2.6 acres. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the petition is only for rezoning and because of this rezoning a final site plan layout will come to us somewhere down the road. However, I trust as was previously indicated by the developers that this particular acreage, 2.6, will be used primarily for parking, circulation and landscaping, not new building sites. That is the comment I would like to make on that. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not here, Mr. Chairman, I think it is wise that we hear from them so I will make a motion to table to our next meeting. Mr. McCann: Is there support? Mr. LaPine: Support. Mr. McCann: If there is no discussion, will the secretary please call the roll. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was #RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 21, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-10 by T. Rogvoy Associates on behalf of Millennium Park proposing to rezone property located east of Middlebelt Road and south of Schoolcraft Road in the North 1/2 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to table Petition 99-6-1-10 to the next meeting. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine NAYS: Alanskas, Shane, Hale, Koons, McCann '`'" ABSENT: None 17139 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. A motion is in order. `�- Mr. Shane: So moved. Mr. McCann: Is that for the reasons stated in our notes? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the petitioner what's the hurry on this and not putting it off for two weeks? Would you be happy if another building went up when we specifically requested a certain number of buildings and a certain amount of commercial usage in that area? Mr. Alanskas: The petitioner is not here. Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking to Elaine who made the motion. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Shane made the motion. Mr. Shane: I have the concerns of Mr. Piercecchi, except that if there is a significant change in the site plan it will have to come back before us but if it is merely an extension of the parking lot and I'm not sure that is a major thing but if we are talking about new buildings or some major change, then I am confident that it will have to come back before this Commission for a revised site plan. I have no problem going ahead with it at this time under these conditions. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to ask the Chairman a question then if I may. Does require then that we have to re-approve the entire site plan now which includes this 2.6 acres or just that 2.6 area of the previously approved site plan? Mr. McCann: This property was included in our site plan. It was originally thought that this was part of the site plan that we approved. But the legal description was improper. So we have already dealt with the site plan that deals with this 2.6 acres. It is the inaccuracy was in the legal description, is that correct Mr. Nowak? Mr. Nowak: Actually this area was not included in their site plan. I believe we have that on a board. The originally approved site plan that did not include that area. So now they have submitted a revised site plan that shows the driveway and parking areas extending over onto that 2.6 acre area. Mr. Piercecchi: It is hard to believe, Mr. Chairman, that they could be off 2.6 acres. Mr. McCann: My understanding was that the original site plan ... Mr. Piercecchi: In essence, I really don't object to it especially if as the petitioner indicated he was going to use it as a parking lot and circulate some landscaping. But we are 17140 adding 2.6 acres to that and although we may rezone it for anything we want, we cannot request certain types of usage when we grant a rezoning, as you �.. know we do not do contract zoning in this state. Mr. McCann: Is that where the current road is now? Mr. Nowak: This is the site plan that was approved in connection with the waiver use approvals for the buildings and various uses on the property. This area outlined in red is the 2.6 acre area that was not included in the site plan as approved. Mr. Piercecchi: And that was the 64.9 acres, correct? Mr. Nowak: Yes. The revised plan submitted in connection with this rezoning request shows the driveway moved over further west on the property right to where there is a dedicated 36 foot wide greenbelt easement and it shows some parking extending onto that property for about approximately 60 parking spaces. Mr. McCann: And it doesn't change the building site plan in any manner? Mr. Nowak: The buildings? Mr. McCann: Yes, the buildings. Mr. Nowak: No. Mr. Shane: The point is if it does, they will have to come back before us. Mr. Piercecchi: This is all well and good is what they tell you what to do but as you know we cannot have contract zoning. So we can approve that as C-2 and they can do anything they want to with it, correct? Mr. Shane: If it doesn't require a site plan approval. Mr. McCann: I am going to call for the vote now. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was #9-161-99 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 21, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-10 by T. Rogvoy Associates on behalf of Millennium Park proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road east of Middlebelt in the North 1/2 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-1-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on adjacent properties; 17141 2) That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the use of the subject land area in conjunction with the adjacent property to the south and east; ti.. 3) That the involved property, of which the land area proposed to be rezoned is a part, will be placed under one uniform zoning classification; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Koons, Hale, Shane, McCann NAYS: Piercecchi, LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an approving resolution. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission will proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda. r.. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-8-22 by Darin& Associates, Inc. on behalf of Disabled American Veterans, Chapter 114, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition onto an existing building on property located at 30905 Plymouth Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Denne and Hubbell and is zoned C-2, General Business. This petition involves a request by the Disabled American Veterans (D.A.V.) of Livonia to construct a small addition to their existing meeting facility located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Middlebelt Roads. The D.A.V. property is bordered to the west by the Elks club, to the east by Hubbell Avenue and the Bone Yard Restaurant, and to the south by a single family residence. The existing 2,700 sq. ft. building was originally constructed as a Manufacturers Bank in 1987. The D.A.V. has occupied the building since 1998. Other than signage, no exterior modifications were made to the site with the recent change of use. The proposed auxiliary meeting room will be constructed on the southeast corner of the building. It will enclose the area below an existing canopy that was previously used as part of the bank's drive-through teller facility. The addition measures 38'-0" x 18'-0" for a total area of 684 feet sq. ft. With the addition, the gross floor area of the building increases to approximately 3, 384 sq. ft. The required parking for this type of use is computed based on a ratio of one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) sq. ft. of 17142 floor area devoted to assembly. Based on the proposed floor plan, a total of 35 parking spaces are required. The site presently contains a total of 30 parking `- spaces; five (5) less than what the ordinance requires. However, staff has determined that sufficient area is available on the south side of the building to accommodate at least five (5) additional parking spaces. A maneuvering lane will continue to exist along the east side of the addition to allow traffic circulation around the building. Moreover,the proposed addition will not impact any of the existing landscaping which exceeds 50 percent of the site. A new foundation will be constructed to support the one-story building addition. The Elevation Plan(Sheet A-4) notes and shows that the new addition will be finished with a matching brick on all three (3) sides. The design also incorporates the existing canopy which contains a three (3) ft. band of E.I.F.S. at the top. In 1991, the property immediately to the south of the D.A.V. site was rezoned from C-2 to RUF. During the proceedings, the Planning Commission determined that a protective screen wall would not be required until such time that the commercial user(s) was to either expand or propose some other site modifications. The Planning Commission should determine if the scale of the current project is enough to "trigger" the requirement to construct a screen wall. If so, the approval of this item should be conditioned on the Petitioner's ability to obtain one of the following within a specified time period: (1) A temporary variance for the protective screen; (2) Planning Commission approval to substitute the required screen wall with a greenbelt: or(3) a building permit to construct the required screen wall. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence: The first item of correspondence is a letter dated September 7, 1999, from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an auxiliary meeting hall addition onto an existing building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second item of correspondence is a letter dated September 14, 1999, from the Division of Police which reads as follows: "I have received three plans regarding the captioned petition; the Floor Plan, Elevations and Wall Sections Details. None of the plans illustrate the parking plan and ingress/egress of the site. I cannot make any recommendations regarding site capacity, points of ingress and egress and compliance to ordinances regarding public safety matters without having reviewed a plan that illustrates the parking plan. Having visited the site, it would appear that the location would most likely not have a problem accommodating the additional traffic, which may be produced by the proposed addition. However, during my visit to the site, I noted large branches which were placed on the driveway entrance and blocking any ingress/egress to the lot via Hubbell Street." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is dated September 16, 1999, from the Engineering Division and reads as follows: "It is difficult to review the proposed addition by Darin & Associates since a site plan was not incorporated in your submittal to this office and the only site plan the Engineering Division has on file is for a temporary bank building (Commercial 17143 File C-1020). The primary concern of this office, relative to the building addition, is the location of the existing service leads for water, sanitary, gas and electrical enter the building. Secondly, would be the grades and drainage of any expanded parking lot which may be required. A field visit revealed there are twenty-eight (28)parking spaces total, with two (2) spaces being designated for handicap parking. The site has two points of ingress/egress, one on Plymouth road and the other on Hubbell. The Hubbell ingress/egress is currently blocked with two (2) dead pine trees laid on their sides. The asphalt approach on Hubbell is deteriorated and should be repaired, if it is going to be placed in service or should be removed if it is not going to be used. The site appears to have sufficient space to expand the parking lot for off street parking behind the building (south side), however, the Planning Department/Commission would have to determine the amount of parking required, the Engineering Division would review the plan for grading and drainage and the Building Department would issue a land use permit to construct the expanded lot. Finally, the site visit revealed a street light pole in the middle of the public sidewalk along Plymouth Road. It is assumed that the light pole will be removed when the new P.R.D.A. street lights are installed and operating. I trust this will provide you with the information necessary to make your decisions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Donald McLean, Senior, 9610 Farmington Road, Livonia. I am presently the commander of Livonia Chapter 114 of Disabled American Veterans. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your addition a little bit? Mr. McLean: The only reason we are making the addition is so that our ladies auxiliary will have more room for their meetings. There will be no increase in attendance. We have roughly 45 people who attend meetings at that location. We have more than ample parking because the Elks uses the whole back part of our parking lot for bingo the same night that we have our meetings and we've had no problems there. The shrubs, or bushes, or trees or whatever they are, that are laying across the driveway, are waiting to be picked up by the City following the storm damage of things. We pulled them out there because that is the site where they said they would pick them up rather than putting them on Plymouth Road. If we get the approval to wall in the drive-in, the parking lot, we have a contractor who is going to do all the re-paving. They are going to take the top three inches off the parking lot and resurface it and remark it for us. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: I wonder if the person who owns the property adjacent to it,to the south, is in the audience? The reason I ask is because there is a note in here about the requirement for either a protective wall or a substitution of a greenbelt. I would be interested to know if that person is present has an opinion of whether they want a protective wall or a greenbelt. 17144 Mr. McCann: Is anybody here on the Disabled Americans Veterans Chapter neighbors? I don't see anyone coming forward. We'll have to come back to that one. Mr. Shane: Well, if a decision has to be made.... Mr. McLean: If you have looked at the property there is quite a high shrub area that separates us and the neighbor to the south. We can't see them. We can see the top of their house, that's all. We've had no outside activities and we only use the building three times a month and that is all. We intend to open it for service work on Wednesday from 10:00 a.m. to roughly 4:00 p.m. but there would only be two of us in the building and any veterans or widows or who ever requires service work, filing claims and such as that, will be the only additional traffic to the property. Mr. Shane: The delemna I have is that there is a protective wall existing along the Elks property. I don't have any problem with the greenbelt providing the abutting property owner doesn't. If we could get an expression from that person of a preference. I would like to know that. That is the reason why I brought it up. Mr. McLean: We can contact them or the City can contact them. Mr. Alanskas: We already have. Mr. McCann: H. the notes say that they have to do one or the other within 30 days. Do you want to just bring that section back or just let them decide whether they want to come back for the waiver or go ahead and build the wall? Mr. Shane: That is what I would like to do. Let them decide on their own. If they decide to substitute the greenbelt or attempt to, then we could try to re-establish contact with the person next door. Mr. McCann: Any other questions for the petitioner? Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anyone in the audience. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #9-162-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-8-8-22 by Darin& Associates, Inc. on behalf of Disabled American Veterans, Chapter 114, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition onto an existing building on property located at 30905 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 by Makas Associates, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 17145 2) That the building materials of the new addition shall match that of the existing building, so that once completed, the entire structure shall look as if it were constructed as one time; 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4) That within the next thirty (30) days one of the following shall take place concerning the south property line; - that the required protective wall shall be erected, or; - that a fully detailed Landscape Plan, defining a greenbelt area, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Commission 5) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 789th Regular Meeting held on July 27, 1999. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #9-163-99 RESOLVED that,the Minutes of the 789th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 27, 1999 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 790th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 10, 1999. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was #9-164-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 790th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1999, are approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, LaPine, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Koons Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the last item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 791' Regular Meeting held on August 24, 1999. 17146 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was #9-165-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 791st Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 24, 1999 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 792nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 21, 1999 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -/ aildvjAvz Michael Hale, Secretary ATTEST: 4 James C. McCann, Chairman /rw