HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-10-19 17189
MINUTES OF THE 794th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
',"' HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 19, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
794th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine
Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons H. G. Shane
Members absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present.
Acting Chairman Alanskas 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
`040. request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is
forwarded to the City Council for the fmal 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. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-1-14 by Leland
and Noel Bittinger proposing to rezone property located between Fairfield and
Brookfield Avenues south of Five Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22
from R-7 to RC.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated
September 30, 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 or the legal
description contained therein, but would like to caution the developers that the
17190
existing sanitary sewer and water main will need to be extended along the front
of the property. 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 David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jim Szkrybalo, 14316 Gary Lane, Livonia. I am the agent for the petitioner Lee and Noel
Bittinger. We are requesting a change of zoning on this parcel from R-7 to RC.
Currently, it is my understanding that a lesser allowed use would be an RC;
however, if we decided to stay with R-7 and do an RC development, we would
be stuck with the setback requirements of R-7 which is 50 feet. We believe that
our plan would necessitate a two story type of construction which we do not
want to do. We also believe that if we change this to RC we would have less
density. Instead of having R-7 where we have non-owner residents, apartment
homes, probably two story, 24 would be allowed under the current zoning, we
would have much less density. We would have equity in private ownership.
We would have a board of directors to maintain control of the project. We
would have very severe requirements under the master deed and bylaws. We
would have no renters in these units. I personally believe having been a
resident here in the City of Livonia that this is an idea whose time has come. It
addresses a severe need in the City of Livonia for quality one-story attached
condominiums. I think the Planning Commission receives on the average of a
half dozen calls per year from residents asking if there are any one-story
r•- condominium dwelling units within the City. The only ones to my recollection
are approximately 10 units in the Villas, which was built 10 years ago, single
story ranch and some that were built two years ago in Arbors Woods. There is
a need that is not being addressed in the City, and I hate to call myself an older
resident, but I am now in my mid-50s. Most of us have lived the dream here in
Livonia and have raised our families here. Maybe we started out at Joy Road
and Inkster, with our first house, then we were at Five and Levan. A lot of us
are at Seven Mile and Wayne and now we want to enjoy our golden years or the
next 20 or 25 years, I hope, still being residents of Livonia but not having to cut
the grass and not having to rake the leaves. Not having to worry about any of
the requirements of home ownership. This condominium process would
address that need. The parcel is ideally located for a one-story, senior type of
development. It is within walking distance of City Hall. It is close to the
library. It is located very close to senior support services. The senior drop-in
center is located within the complex that we are here. There is a senior
transportation program that is located here. We believe that the parcel being
heavily wooded, if it were developed as an R-7 or even as a condominium
within an R-7 would be a two-story type of condominium would necessitate
taking old oak hardwood trees that are on the property and almost entirely
removing them. Our planner has prepared, a rudimentary drawing of the types
of units that we would intend to do here. We have had permission from the
builder of this project in Arbor Woods, Mr. Sylvestri, to start with his plan
which is about a 1400 sq. ft. attached ranch condominium. These are located on
Ann Arbor Trail. They are 100% brick. This is our starting point. These
condominiums will contain, if we are allowed to build them, two bedrooms and
17191
two baths, energy efficient furnaces, air conditioning, a premium roof. Like I
said, all brick. The soffits and trim will be trimmed in aluminum and vinyl so
there will be very little exterior maintenance on these units. They will look like
single family ranch homes that are located in the R-l district. They will be
larger but they won't be so large that you can't take care of them when you are
70 or 75 years old, at least the interiors. We believe this will be a premium
product. We know that the demand is there. Most of the people who are
expressing an interest are most of the people at my business who are ReMax
Classic who are my age, are looking for this product. A lot of people have
moved out of the City of Livonia and have gone directly to the west, Country
Club Village over the last five or six years, to move into the ranch homes that
Pulte built there. They still identify with the City of Livonia but they are no
longer residents. Our proposal would keep the residents here and put out a
superior product. The density would be approximately 1/2 of the density
allowed in an R-7. Under RC I think it is around 4400 sq. ft. of land per 2
bedroom unit. Our preliminary plan works out to between 5,000 and 6,000 sq.
ft. of land, per unit. If this is passed and we start the process of site plan
approval, it is our intention to go to planned residential development so that not
only this board but the City Council has 100% input on the location and the size
and the setbacks of these units.
Mr. Alanskas: As you know, tonight is only a rezoning issue. The site plan will come back to
us after.
'11,.► Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes I understand. We have had a rendering done. It is our intent to stagger
the units five feet so that they do not look like barracks all in a row. They are
staggered in a saw tooth pattern. Architecturally these will be very good
additions to the community. They will be very good additions to the neighbors
directly to the south. Much more preferable than two stories and much more
preferable than R-7. I have had the opportunity to send approximately 75 letters
to the local residents to discuss this with them. There was a meeting at my
office last Thursday. I had one person attend who was the next door neighbor
on Fairfield adjacent to the property. I have discussed this plan with him and I
think he is in the audience. I don't want to presume what his opinion is. I
thought it was favorable. He was the only one that showed up to the meeting. I
did have one telephone call that was negative. In discussing this over the phone
I think the idea was that neighbor is coming along. He happens to be in the
audience also. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: I think I have a copy of the plan you just explained. If I am reading this right,
although we are not talking about site plan approval, I think the architect was a
bit generous in the number of units you can get on the site. I think there are
some setback problems here. I only say that to mean that only you are showing
15 units you are probably going to get less than that, which I have no problem
with. I have no problem at this point unless I hear something from the audience
regarding the RC. I think you are going to lose at least two units in which case
you are almost back to an R-1 density. If this is passed and you get to the site
17192
plan approval stage, there are some changes that will have to be made. I just
wanted you to go realize that this may not be the exact plan that gets approved.
Mr. Szkrybalo: I understand and that is a very preliminary plan of the site. We have not
extended any large sums of money and we don't want to presume that we are
going to get zoning that doesn't exist. Once the zoning is passed,then we will
go full speed ahead and expend sums of money to give a nice site rendering. I
just say that I know if we get RC that we will be able to work something out
with this Commission and the Council.
Mr. Alanskas: Anyone else?
Mr. LaPine: I know this has nothing to do with the rezoning but are these going to have
garages on them?
Mr. Szkrybalo: They are going to have two car attached garages. They are going to have full
concrete driveways down to the street.
Mr. LaPine: On the original plan you brought to us in August, you were going to have an R-
1 with ten homes. You were going to have 135'X 65' lots. Which now, if I
read it right, you are going to have 15 units.
Mr. Szkrybalo: We would like 15 units.
`�•► Mr. LaPine: Are you indicating to me that you think your market here is senior citizens.
Mr. Szkrybalo: I think the market for this particular property, because of its location, near all
City services, are going to be specifically for those Livonia residents and other
city residents, who want to be near senior type complexes. I think the majority
of the owners are going to be greater than 50 years old.
Mr. LaPine: Will they be priced accordingly so that they will be affordable for seniors?
Mr. Szkrybalo: I think they will be priced with a fair market value. The market is going to
determine exactly what people are going to pay for them. I will tell you that
there is a vast majority of people in the City of Livonia, my first home here was
at Six Mile and Levan. It was a 2100 sq. ft. colonial that I paid $60,000 for.
My mother came to look at it in 1976 and thought I was a lunatic. There are
vast numbers of people in Livonia who have enjoyed the potential paper profit
of their residences. Most of the people are going to want something that is very
good quality construction. We are going to be very particular on what we build
here. Our market is Livonia residents who are in the four bedroom, two and a
half bath colonials or they have sold them and had to leave town and live in an
apartment house because they couldn't fmd anything that is on one floor.
Mr. LaPine: But if young families want to buy these units, you are going to sell to them, is
that correct?
17193
Mr. Szkrybalo: Of course. We're not going to discriminate against anybody; martial status or
family, but these are going to be basically two bedroom units. Usually, families
`"r want at least three bedrooms and a ranch home. We are designing two large
bedrooms as opposed to three smaller bedrooms.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that all Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: Yes. I have no problem with the rezoning, but I am going to have some
problems when we get to the site plan approval.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to address a question to Mark. Mark, the RC regulations require
one side yard of at least 25 feet with a total of both side yards being at least 60
feet where these types of projects abut up against residential. The Taylor-
Garden Subdivision which zoned R-1 abuts this property and I notice the
setback is nine feet. Am I understanding it correctly that the Taylor-Garden
Subdivision has to have at least 51 feet, or does it require 25 feet minimum
there?
Mr. Taormina: Let me just point out that the side yard set back requirement would apply to
both of the side yards in this case. It wouldn't be limited to just where the
property abuts the single family zoned land. You are correct. The set back
adjacent to the Taylor-Garden Subdivision on this preliminary design concept
shows a nine foot set back. One of two things would have to occur. Either a
variance would have to be granted to the side yard set back requirements since it
does establish a minimum of 25 feet, or there would have to be waiver use
approval granted under the planned residential development standards of the
ordinance which would allow for flexibility in the placement of these units. The
total of the two side yards under a conventional design would have to be 60 feet
so this would mean that you would either have 30 feet on both sides or 25 feet
minimum on one and 35 on the other in order equal the total of 60 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then my understanding is correct. The unit that abuts up against the Taylor-
Gardens Sub would have to be increased to 25 feet.
Mr. Taormina: Under the conventional site standards.
Mr. Piercecchi: Unless they got ZBA approval for the change?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Does that also occur on the R-7 multi-family that is on the other end of this
subdivision and the units on Brookfield? Does that 25 feet hold there or is that
another number?
Mr. Taormina: The 25 foot set backs standards would apply there as well.
Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. So they've got 8 feet there, so you can see where Mr. Shane is saying
that you may have to strip a couple of units. Why was the R-1 withdrawn?
Was it fmancial withdrawal, or what?
17194
Mr. Szkrybalo: It was brought to our attention for a tremendous need for senior type ranch
condominiums here in town. I have always tried to fmd parcels that would be
suited for that very use. Land is at a premium here in Livonia. Some of the
parcels that I have looked at to develop with other people are RUF parcels and
to try to get RUF changed to RC for senior citizens, ifs an uphill battle. It was
almost like a light went off when we were discussing this a couple of weeks
before the initial hearing that we had withdrawn and I had not thought about it
before. The RC was allowed in a R-7 with a 50 foot setback. We thought RC
was a better use than R-7. It fits a particular need here in Livonia. I firmly
believe in this RC zoning. That is basically why we are not doing the R-1. One
fold is economic but the real main reason is that we feel that we can fulfill a
need in the community for this type of dwelling. We can't put it in other areas
of town because of the RUF or the adjacent zoning if R-4 and then the cost of
land per unit gets totally astronomical.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am not questioning the desirability of this type of housing in our great City,
but as Mr. Shane pointed out, with the R-1, if I remember right, it was tenuous
and we have to eliminate the end units here. You are probably only going to get
12 homes in the RC because of the setback requirements. I just wanted you to
know that.
Mr. Szkrybalo: Thirteen, I think.
Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to bring that to your attention so that when you bring in your site
plan, be aware of those setback requirements.
Mr. Szkrybalo: We understand.
Mr. Alanskas: Any other questions?
Mr. LaPine: The original plan was for R-1, and my personal opinion is that it should be R-1.
You don't think these are marketable or you couldn't build ten homes there, that
size and make a profit?
Mr. Szkrybalo: No doubt I could. O.K. We could do that. We are addressing a different
need. I think the need is more critical to build condos than it is to build single
family ranches. I have represented builders here in Livonia where we fmd a
piece of land and we go through a lot split and we built four ranches on Norfolk
Street. Wherever we can fmd land we build ranches. One of our builders is
building three ranches on Ann Arbor Trail. Some of the seniors are buying
those. But some of them are saying; "I like ranch. I need a ranch. I need
everything on one story but I am not here to be shoveling snow in winter and I
don't want to cut the grass. I can hire somebody out but I am always going to
constantly worry about it." If you have a single family detached house, there is
more responsibility of the owner. If the owner is leaving town after the holidays
and coming back the first of May, they sit there wherever they go and they
worry about "I wonder if the water heater blew up or something and nobody is
there to tell me that I have a problem with my home." If you have a
17195
condominium community those things are taken care of by the homeowners
association.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Anything else, Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: No.
Mr. Alanskas: I will now go to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this,
please give your name and address and why you are for or against this?
David Atsinger, 14834 Fairfield. My opinion coming in here, I talked to James last week, I
was unable to make his meeting. I am here this evening. I was led to believe
that City Council had turned down the R-1 as far as residential but somehow
that doesn't appear to be the case. Personally, I have been on the street now
since 1987- we have apartments, we have condos. It seems like everything gets
dumped on our street. I believe that the apartments that are on the east side of
Fairfield are considered low income apartments. I have had run-ins with some
of the residents there because they can come and go. They can be on a month-
to-month lease. Now, when I talked to James on Thursday, like I say my
understanding was, condos, it was either that or apartments. Now I am being
led to believe it could still be residential. I would prefer not to have apartments.
I am dead set against that. Condos are livable but if it could still be residential I
would prefer residential because they do have a vested interest.
`•• Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Atsinger, you know the R-1 classification was denied by the City Council
and that is why the petitioner is here before us with a new classification.
Mr. Atsinger: If it has been denied, can you tell me since I was not at that meeting, why R-1
was turned down?
Mr. Alanskas: That happened over a year ago. Mr. Taormina, could you expand on that at all?
Mr. Taormina: It was denied for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed change of
zoning is inconsistent with the existing zoning and land uses in the area to the
north and east of the subject property. (2) That the proposed change of zoning
is not needed to provide for a reasonable residential development scheme for the
property and (3) That the proposed of change of zoning will not provide for the
maximum development potential of the subject parcel. That action was taken
on August 24, 1998.
Mr. LaPine: And there was a split vote, 4 to 3.
Mr. Alanskas: And after that, I don't know how long ago,one Council person wanted to try to
rescind that and that was also denied, so that was a complete denial. That is
why we are going with an RC this evening.
Mr. Atsinger: So as a resident, our only choices are either it is zoned as apartment or condos?
Mr. Alanskas: It depends on what happens this evening. Yes
17196
Mr. Atsinger: Then personally, I am going to have to opt for the condos.
,4010.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much. Anybody else?
Steven Borkowski, 14846 Fairfield, Livonia. Directly kitty corner from the property that they
are talking about developing on, I am for condos. Like Dave, prior speaker, we
have a lot of problems with the multi dwelling next to us but I am for the condos
and the way they are set up.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Frank Cannizzaro, 14857 Fairfield. I have been a resident of Livonia for 34 years and I have
lived at that address for the last 29 years. My home borders the southern parcel
of that land. I am in favor of the RC zoning. I particularly am in favor of not
having an apartment next to my house or a parking lot next to my house. So I
strongly urge you to reconsider it and rezone it.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else?
Kathleen Carvel, 15022 Fairfield. I am in favor of either residential or condominium. I do not
want any apartment over there. We already have a couple of units over there
and I would rather have home ownership and also, the gentleman who made the
presentation earlier, I never received any invitation to come to your office. I
`4_ knew nothing of the meeting and I would have come had I received something
in the mail.
Mr. Alanskas: There will be time for you to come again because this is just for rezoning only.
Anybody else? See no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was
#10-175-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on October 19, 1999 on Petition 99-9-1-14 by Leland and
Noel Bittinger proposing to rezone property located between Fairfield and
Brookfield Avenues south of Five Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22
from R-7 to RC,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-9-1-14 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will ensure that the subject property
is developed for condominium uses as opposed to rental apartment uses;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of
housing types in the area; and
17197
4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land
Use Plan designation of medium density residential land use for this
'`.
area.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Hale, Shane, Piercecchi, Koons, Alanskas
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: McCann
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. Alanskas: Any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I just would like to say I voted against it because I think it should be R-1
because Council turned it down and it was a 4 to 3 decision. There is no reason
why another hearing may or may not reverse their decision, therefore I am not
voting for it.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Anybody else?
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Szkrybalo, I think your presentation was compelling in regards to senior
*ay citizens, but I would like for you to think along a little broader terms. I think
young working couples would also like this at as mid or beginning point. I also
think single parents would really appreciate the less upkeep. So I am thinking
in broader terms than you are.
Mr. Szkrybalo: I appreciate your input. We are not going to particularly prevent young
professionals who do not have children or not planning to have a family or
single parents. This is not going to be designated a senior condominium. It is
going to be a regular condominium and once we have the models up, if there
are interested parties that wish to engage in a purchase, we will certainly
entertain that.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-2-26 by
Restaurant Development, Inc., on behalf of Krispy Kreme Donuts requesting
waiver use approval to operate a donut shop with customer seating on the south
side of Grand River between Eight Mile and Inkster Roads (27695 Grand River
Avenue) in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
17198
Mr. Taormina:There are five items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 23, 1999, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a donut shop with customer seating 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 is a letter
from the Engineering Division, dated September 29, 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 or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third item of correspondence is a letter from the
Division of Police, dated September 30, 1999 which reads as follows: "The
captioned petitions have all been reviewed by the Traffic Bureau. There are no
objections to the site plans as submitted. All sites have been visited, and there
are no concerns or recommendations to submit." The letter is signed by John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The fourth item of correspondence is
from the Inspection Department dated October 1, 1999 which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 21, 1999 the site plan for the above
subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The barrier
free parking spaces are required to be located nearest to the store's entrance.
(2) All existing landscaping needs to be replaced. The landscape plan does not
indicate if the site is irrigated. (3) Parking areas and driveways need to be
repaired, resealed and double striped. (4) The existing satellite dish should be
removed(no permit on file). I trust this has provided the requested
information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. The fifth item of correspondence is a letter from Leinberger
Builders, dated October 12, 1999, addressed to Al Nowak of the Planning
Department which reads as follows: "(1) There is a front entrance/exit door
planned directly beside the handicapped parking spaces. (2) We are planning
to replace all the existing landscaping and to install a complete irrigation
system. (3) We are planning to rework the parking lot per the site plan. We
plan to top coat the entire lot and restripe per the plans. (4) The existing
satellite dish will be removed." The letter is signed by Steve Leinberger. Thank
you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Larry Ledbetter, 1093 Longwood Drive, Woodstock, Georgia 30189.
Mr. Alanskas: Please tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Ledbetter:We are requesting a waiver for the use the property to operate a donut shop,
Krispy Kreme Donut shop.
Mr. Alanskas: While you are putting up your boards would you tell us about Krispy Kreme
and how many stores they have and where they are located.
17199
Mr. Ledbetter:Yes sir, that was what I wanted to, actually. Krispy Kreme is a company that
has been in existence since 1937. It is a company out of Winston Salem, North
Carolina. I have been working with the company about eight years and during
that time, we've opened about 30 stores. At this time, we have 156 stores nation
wide. The market has been expanded from the south through the mid-west and
even into California and Las Vegas. Krispy Kreme is a donut company that has
been around for almost 70 years now. They have a great product. They are
very social minded. One of the things they do besides just a retail donut
operation is they have a fund raising program and they work with the children
from the different schools. They give them the opportunity to raise money for
different programs. For instance, this year in my neighborhood in Woodstock,
you have the Woodstock Reds which is an eight and nine year old baseball team
that went to the world series, or the tournament they have up there. They
funded their trip and their uniforms and everything else by selling Krispy
Kreme donuts on our main corner of the intersection for I guess it was about six
different weekends. I say they were out there but they were staggered about
once a month. Like I said, we are very social minded. We will be a good
neighbor. Other than that, I can answer questions for you.
Mr. Alanskas: Why don't you go through the site plan and the building and then we'll have
questions for you.
Mr. Ledbetter:I have renderings of two of our existing buildings. This was the latest building
that we built in Arlington, Texas. This is a building that we have built several
r•- different times in the south. This color, I am told, is as light as we could get it
and as close as we could get it to the cream color up here, if that scares you a
little bit.
Mr. Alanskas: That is not the actual color?
Mr. Ledbetter:Correct. There was something about the ink cartridge or something like that.
Anyway, what we plan on doing is taking the existing shops, an automotive tire
store and we are going to turn it into a Krispy Kreme retail donut shop. It is
hard for me to explain. I've gone through this so many times. I've been
involved with probably 28 different stores throughout the south, from Florida
and through the southeast. I am personally very proud to be involved with
them. We they asked me to come to Detroit and build these properties for them
I absolutely wanted to do that. So here I am.
Mr. Alanskas: Let me help you by letting the Commissioners ask a few questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: I've been back and back again on that site. There is something that bothers
me. So my remarks, sir, are going to really concern your site plan. This
particular layout right here. To begin with, I am concerned with incoming
traffic. I would like to know what assurance can you give that the cars leaving
the drive-in window will not collide with incoming traffic from the eastern
drive? You notice the ingress and egress in there. Have you considered a flared
curb north of the drive-in window, let me show you what I mean by that. If you
had a flared curb this way you could landscape in there and it would direct the
17200
traffic over here instead of having a potential collision with these cars down
here. Any problem with that?
Mr. Alanskas: We are just throwing out the questions we have?
Dan Dukarski, consultant for Bartow and Kings Engineers. We are the engineers that have
been working on the site and working with Larry and working on developing a
workable site plan for his building. The area that you are talking about..
Mr. Piercecchi: Right around the end of that building. Because you've got cars coming in and
you've cars that will practically be in the same lane.
Mr. Dukarski: There is a joint use agreement for this area.
Mr. Piercecchi: I know but that is far away. When those cars pull away from that window,
they are going to be in the same lane as the incoming traffic. Correct?
Mr. Dukarski: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am saying if you could have a curb there, then you could have at least
deflect them away from there or straight ahead can get into a problem with a
handicapped parking spaces backing up.
Mr. Dukarski: I guess I don't understand what you want. You want to re-route the traffic this
�.• way.
Mr. Piercecchi: I just made a simple little sketch here and you can increase your landscaping
too.
Mr. Dukarski: Sure.
Mr. Piercecchi: No problem with that. That is just my opinion anyway. Maybe the rest won't
agree with that.
Mr. Dukarski: That just gets them out of the traffic lane sooner instead of cutting right back in
at the last minute.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think that would be an asset to that property. O.K. The second question I
have here is, have you considered limiting the line to the drive-in window to
strictly the western entrance? A directional sign at that western entrance would
solve that problem. Right here. A directional sign would not be in violation of
our ordinance. You want the traffic to come in here for that drive-in window.
You can't have them come in here from there or they'll bump into each other.
Any problem with that?
Mr. Alanskas: Dan, if you could just have those people stand back there, so they don't have to
come up to the counter. Just explain to them what you want.
Mr. Dukarski: You are talking about putting an entrance sign right here.
17201
Mr. Piercecchi: Right, make that a directional sign for the drive-in.
Mr. Ledbetter: So there is a distinguished entrance.
Mr. Piercecchi: Right, because they have to come that way first. It is the logical place to turn
because it is a one way there on Grand River.
Mr. Ledbetter: Are you talking about making this ingress and egress one way?
Mr. Piercecchi: No. I'm just saying into the drive-in window. You wouldn't lose any of those
parking spaces.
Mr. Alanskas: With you pointing to the site plan, the audience and the TV audience can see
what you are doing instead of standing up to the counter.
Mr. Dukarski: The directional sign is not a problem.
Mr. Ledbetter: We'll work with the Engineering Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: Because the sign there is in order and it does not violate our ordinance, there
is just a size restriction and things of that nature and set back restrictions of
course.
`New Mr. Shane: Could you point out what Dan was saying about the curbing.
Mr. Dukarski: Putting the curb in here to direct the cars out sooner into this traffic lane rather
than extend them out all the way to the approach.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed also the dumpster enclosure on your drawing is constructed out of
split face block. I think it would be more aesthetic and compatible if it were
constructed out of the same brick that you are putting on the building.
Mr. Ledbetter: We were just talking about that.
Mr. Piercecchi: No problem with that?
Mr. Dukarski: We are going to try to decorate that up to try and match the colors and motif of
the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: Another question I have is, how about this joint drive agreement. Do you
have a copy of that?
Mr. Ledbetter: I don't have it with us.
Mr. Piercecchi: But you will have one when it goes to the Council? That should be a part of
our resolution.
Mr. Alanskas: That is a signed document?
17202
Mr. Ledbetter: Yes it is. Let me explain one other thing. Without that, we couldn't get title
`"" insurance to go through and close this project. So that has already been taken
care of. We've got a title commitment and everything.
Mr. Piercecchi: I just wanted to know if you had it.
Mr. Ledbetter: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: So you have it but just didn't bring it tonight. Do you plan any new lighting
on the site. Not just those telephone poles that are there, those 20 footers. Do
you plan any new style lighting. I notice you've got a few places where there
are lights. I mean new poles.
Mr. Dukarski: We will provide lighting in accordance with the requirements of the area. I am
sure Larry has a standard light pole design that they use that matches the motif
of their buildings. That is something we will have to look into when we get into
that.
Mr. Piercecchi: So basically they will be new light poles, then?
Mr. Ledbetter: Yes. The one that is existing won't fit the package so it will be taken out.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to comment that I am pleased it was your decision to remove the
�•.• dish that is attached to the rear of the building. And last but not least, I know
this may be a difficult question to answer but that dumpster location, is there
any alternative location that that dumpster could be placed? It looks like its in
the wrong place.
Mr. Dukarski: That is a problem and we tried it in several different locations and because of
the parking of requirements are right for the one that's there right now. That is
just about the only place we could fit it. I was just talking to Steve a couple of
minutes ago and we thought maybe we could put a little greenbelt area in here
and put a cedar fence up at the end of the greenbelt area and maybe extend the
cedar fence maybe 15 or 20 feet along this way here and you would have kind
of a cedar fence concealed area there.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am thinking more than hiding it. I am concerned about someone colliding
with it. You've got two way traffic in that area there and there isn't a heck of a
lot of space between when you are going around that corner and that dumpster.
Mr. Dukarski: Without getting into the other parking and losing parking spaces, that is about
the only place we could put it.
Mr. Piercecchi: I know it is difficult. I admitted that in my initial remarks.
Mr. Dukarski: I know it is in the middle of the parking lot but that is the best we can do.
17203
Mr. LaPine: The first question I want to ask is, I want to find out exactly what building are
we talking about. I was out to your location on Telegraph and I was told by
John that the unit you were going to build is the tall building. Is that correct?
Mr. Alanskas: There are two pictures. The model or the larger one?
Mr. Ledbetter: This one is the one.
Mr. LaPine: So that is the one we are getting.
Mr. Shane: The one with the canopy?
Mr. LaPine: No,the canopy was on the other one.
Mr. Shane: Which one, the striped one or the other one?
Mr. LaPine: The striped one.
Mr. Hale: The canopy is on the other one.
Mr. Ledbetter: When you look at the two of them there is not much difference.
Mr. LaPine: This one is taller. The building is taller. So this is actually the type of building
that is being built here?
Mr. Ledbetter: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The second question I have is, we are talking about the parking here and
personally I have to agree with my fellow commissioner, the dumpster is in a
bad location because of the way the parking is. I prefer to see the dumpster on
the other, directly across the other side. The reason for that is when you go
back and look at this whole site, the parking is really, anybody parks anywhere.
There is going to be people parking in shopping centers that are going to walk
over here. I just don't see any continuity in the parking. In talking to John, you
don't have that many people parking here. Twenty-five percent of the business
is drive-through so that is where your biggest business is. The biggest amount
of your business is in the morning between probably 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. I have
a problem like he does. I think it is just too tight in there when you get these
cars in here. I don't know, maybe it isn't, depending upon what time of day the
trash people come in and pick up the dumpster and I would assume that this
type of operation you would probably have a dumpster once a day or twice a
week? How many times a week do we do this.
John Roche: At the store on Telegraph, it is twice a week.
Mr. LaPine: I think that is something we can consider.
Mr. Ledbetter: If the commission is willing to grant a variance on parking, we can work on
that.
17204
Mr. LaPine: We can't give you that. You will have to go to ZBA. To me you have a better
chance of doing it that way when they come in off of Grand River they drive
back there otherwise they have to come around the building and they have to go
down through the building where the cars are stacked up for the drive-through.
It is no problem if they come in late in the morning say around 10:00 or 11:00
when you are not getting your biggest traffic. I don't know. That is something
you guys would have to work out. The next question I have, you are not asking
for any signage tonight. We're not even going to discuss signage tonight, is that
correct?
Mr. Ledbetter: We haven't had a chance to discuss our signage.
Mr. LaPine: O.K.
Mr. Ledbetter: I spoke with Mr. Nowak about the signage and I understand what the
restrictions are on it.
Mr. LaPine: The other thing is, as I understand it, I mention there were a lot of kids there and
he did mention that you have kids come in and you bring kids in from the
schools, let them take tours, make their own donuts there and things of this
nature. You are really into the community relations trying to build up with
people. I also understand this is going to be a 24 hour operation. Is that
correct?
Mr. Ledbetter: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: As far as I am concerned, after I was out to the location, I was very impressed.
It was a good, clean operation. It was operating well. It was quite busy and this
was around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m. I think this piece of property can handle this
operation. I think it is in a good location. The only thing I mentioned to him
was they've got Dunkin Donuts across the street and they don't feel like they've
got any competition with Dunkin Donuts and after eating one of their donuts, it
was very good, so I think this is a good mix for that empty building and it is
going to clean it up a lot. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I wonder if you had considered a cooler or refrigerated trash holding area inside
your building. It looks like you have a pretty good size storage area in there.
Mr. Ledbetter: I think there are a lot of issues because we had talked about that earlier and I
understand there is a restaurant here in town that does that, and I have to believe
there has to be some serious heath issues with that. I can't speak to that except
that I do know that at some point it is cost prohibitive to do certain things and
I've got to believe that that would be really expensive because we've have to do
something like Mark was talking about with a refrigerated unit inside. Is that
what you guys were talking about with Bill Knapps? I don't know how to do
that. If he is doing that, he is the only one that I have ever seen who is doing
that. That is not to say other people don't, I really don't know how to answer
that.
17205
Mr. Shane: Mr. LaPine's idea of the trash dumpster area over on the other side and there is a
`—• landscaped area largest enough one or perhaps you could substitute a parking
space for the landscaped area. It might be slightly tight but it might be a way to
push it into that corner a little bit.
Mr. Ledbetter: This corner right here?
Mr. Shane: Yes. The other thing is the canopy striped?
Mr. Ledbetter:We were just discussing the trash can issue and the answer is no. The canopies
that you saw at the store are striped, these are not. This is a new model.
Basically that is the new model we are using.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. Hale: Are any of the stores franchise stores that you have?
Mr. Ledbetter: They are all franchise.
Mr. Hale: So there are no corporate owned stores at all?
Mr. Ledbetter: Not in the Detroit market. John is the C.O.O. of a company by the name of
Dough-Rae-Me and Dough-Rae-Me owns the franchise owns the franchise
— rights to Michigan.
Mr. Hale: So John(Roche) will be the engineer and franchisee?
John Roche: Yes.
Mr. Hale: So you will be the franchise operator for Michigan? And you have one other
locations on Telegraph?
Mr. Alanskas: Would you give us your name and address please.
John Roche, 403 Potter Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. We have two other locations. We have
one at Fourteen Mile and Van Dyke in Warren and the other one is on
Telegraph in Dearborn Heights.
Mr. Hale: I am sure this won't happen because you seem to be doing very well but what is
the corporate philosophy when in the event a franchisees location doesn't do
well. You know you've got competition right down the road there. What is the
position of the company on that?
Mr. Roche: I guess probably the best way to answer that is Krispy Kreme right now,they
have never had a store close due to operational default. Krispy Kreme, takes a
very active role in having corporate representation come up. Within the last
three months, we have probably had two audits per store and we have a group
coming in to audit our stores next week. They are very passionate about the
17206
way their brand is spread out from the south. They are kind of a protective
family down in the south so they are almost overly protective sometimes. But
�" they also provide a great training support to keep you in compliance, if that
answers your question.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple of questions. Number one, you say you have stores in
Michigan?
Mr. Roche: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees do you have in a store from midnight until say 8:00 a.m.
Mr. Roche: It changes from about midnight until 4:00 a.m. We need about two people.
What we have is a production person. We make all of our donuts fresh every
day. At the end of the day what we don't use, we box up and give to a local
charity. So we will produce donuts from midnight until about 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.
then we also have a retail person who is usually cleaning who will attend to the
drive-through, if anyone comes. At about 4:00 a.m. we bring in about three
more people and those people usually take the position of working the retail
counter up front.
Mr. Alanskas: You say, if anybody comes through the drive-through,the question I have
pertains to that, say from midnight until 4:00 a.m. what percent of your sale is
during those hours?
' ..
Mr. Roche: I can tell you that in Michigan we don't have any 24 hour stores. We are real
new in Michigan. Our store on Van Dyke opened up last year in February and
Dearborn opened up in November. So we haven't done 24 hours yet.
Mr. Alanskas: Why do you want to start now?
Mr. Roche: Two reasons. One, because we are in the store anyhow to do the production to
make sure we will have the fresh donuts and if we are there anyhow, to have an
extra person in. The reason we picked this store in particular to be 24 hours is
really solely due to the traffic count. When we found out other stores in other
parts of the country where they do have a tremendous traffic volume there are
able to stay somewhat steady throughout the night to accommodate people who
are coming back late. One of the reasons we chose to do this in Michigan, in
Detroit, is with the auto workers,that third shift. They go on 24 hours. This is
going to give an opportunity to the people who are leaving the plant to be able
to come in either when they are leaving from work or going in to work
Mr. Alanskas: Your sales are strictly retail to the customer. You don't have any sales to stores
or grocery stores and you sell donuts to them also.
Mr. Roche: It is very select.
Mr. Alanskas: But you do that also?
17207
Mr. Roche: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Your 24 hour operation, is there a point in that time, for example from midnight
to 4:00 a.m., where it is only drive-through only?
Mr. Roche: Yes. At 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. Koons: 11:00 p.m. until?
Mr. Roche: 11:00 until 5:30 a.m., when we actually open.
Mr. LaPine: Let me just say Dunkin Donuts is a 24 hour operation across the street. One
other question I want to ask, one side of the property there,that tree that is out
there, are you going to take care of all that?
Mr. Roche: Absolutely, that is one of the things we talked about. Even that store leased on
Telegraph we had just come in and had actually taken over this market. The
store had a change of ownership and the one thing we did, we had a master
gardener actually come out to our Dearborn store and Warren location and we
gutted all the landscaping that was there and we put in all new landscaping and
then they will actually come back in the spring. There is only so much we want
to do right now before the winter but that is part of our plan, we really want to
be the leaders in the whole community with having the nicest looking building.
When the gentleman mentioned having the proper lighting, we want to be the
'..- brightest building with the best landscaping.
Mr. LaPine: We have a contest here in Livonia where we give an award to the best
commercial building that has beautiful landscaping. Maybe you can win it.
Mr. Roche: We'll go for it.
Mr. Alanskas: I have just one more question. I know at the present time you only have 5.5%
landscaping and I know with what you have it is going to go up to 8.2%. If you
could, a lot of times you can get these planters, these nice pots where you can
still put trees and stuff in, I would like to see the landscape, if you could, raise it
up higher than 8%. I think if you plant some of these around the sites of the
building with these planters, it would certainly help to do that. By the building
there is a lot room where you could, I believe. You might consider that. Any
other questions?
Mr. LaPine: It just entered my mine what I really wanted to ask. You don't allow any heavy
semi-trucks or anything like that to go through the drive-through, do you?
Mr. Roche: No.
Mr. Alanskas: If there are no further questions, we will now go to the audience. Is there
anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
17208
Joe Sanchez, 20310 St. Francis. Basically I live at the southeast corner of the shopping center
area on St. Francis and Long and I just found out about this. My only concerns
are not against the business but right now we get a lot of trash that comes
through the parking lot, even from Dunkin Donuts and White Castles and
everything like that. So concern number one is a lot of people have said they
would like to see a wall or something put up right there at the end of St. Francis
where it dead ends where the trash comes through. And they are going to have
extra lighting and 24 hours means more noise from cars, loud mufflers and so
on and extra lights that my kitchen looks right out so I would like to have
something to buffer us from the businesses over there.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Jason Childs, 20400 St. Francis. I live right next door to Joe. I get a lot of debris from Farmer
Jacks across the street and we get a lot of debris from Dunkin Donuts and White
Castle's parking lot is blowing across Eight Mile into our yards. If there is any
way to prohibit trash in any way from coming into St. Francis as the street there,
that is my only concern, if we can do something about that.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. I will give the petitioner the last word if you would like to answer
that question in regards to your maintenance, as to how you people take care of
your trash out there. How long and how many times during the day, whenever
needed. It might ease their minds.
r•- Mr. Roche: Absolutely great concerns. Our image is everything to us and we patrol the
parking lots all the time. Especially when you are on a busy thorough way like
that. Trash will come and we know that. But it is our responsibility in the
community to keep our spot up and clean at all times.
Mr. Alanskas: And you have the equipment to do that, to go out there with there brooms?
Mr. Roche: Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#10-176-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on October 19, 1999, on Petition 99-9-2-26 by Restaurant
Development, Inc., on behalf of Krispy Kreme Donuts requesting waiver use
approval to operate a donut shop with customer seating on the south side of
Grand River between Eight Mile and Inkster Roads (27695 Grand River
Avenue) in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-9-2-26 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan/Landscape Plan marked Sheet 3 of 5 prepared by
Bartow& King Engineers, with revisions discussed this evening
17209
regarding directional signs, enclosure material, flared curbs, etc., dated
September 1999 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet 5 of 5 prepared by
Bartow& King Engineers, dated September 1999 is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 38;
4) That the landscaping shown on the above referenced Site
Plan/Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5) That the following site improvements as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 12, 1999 from the petitioner's representative, Steve
Leinberger of Leinberger Builders, shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department;
- That handicapped spaces of the required number, size and
location shall be provided;
- That a complete landscape irrigation system shall be installed;
- That the entire parking lot shall be improved with a top coat of
bituminous material and shall be double striped;
`.. - That the existing satellite dish be removed;
6) That site lighting shall be provided by means of shielded light fixtures
mounted on poles not exceeding 20 feet in height;
7) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
four-inch brick, no exceptions.
8) That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of the same four-inch
brick material; and
9) That documentation for the joint driveway agreement relating to the
adjacent property to the east be submitted to the Planning Department
before waiver use approval is granted by the City Council.
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
17210
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. Alanskas: Any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: One question, did we decide if we are going to move that dumpster or will that
be taken care of?
Mr. Piercecchi: We wish to move it and even if we have to give up a space but to give up from
26 to 25 would require Zoning Board of Appeal however I think they would
grant that.
Mr. LaPine: Ido to.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is only space. That is where it belongs, where he pointed out.
Mr. LaPine: The other solution was what Mr. Shane brought up was if they got a landscape
barrier there which is small which you could turn that into a parking space and
move the dumpster down to the other end.
'u.. Mr. Piercecchi: Would you wish to add a friendly amendment to my motion?
Mr. LaPine: Why don't we add another thing, to explore options to moving the dumpster to
the west.
Mrs. Koons: I truly believe you. I have seen your other stores,they are very clean. But for
our neighbors, I would hope that someone could also monitor that during
construction because there is a potential for a large amount of debris then and I
don't know if that would be you or someone you could assign, but I would hope
that we could keep the construction debris away from home also.
Mr. Roche: We could do that.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Hale: I am very happy that you are going in there. I think that you will be good tenant
and it certainly is needed improvements to that building but I would ask you to
keep in mind to improve the landscaping if you could a little more than 8%. We
are only an advisory board of the Council. You'll have to go to that stage and I
would like to see a little bit more than 8%, if you could. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Any other discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I just noted that during the presentation this evening the
elevation plans that were presented differed slightly, I believe, from the plans
17211
that we have. I don't think it is with respect to the height of the building, but the
northeasterly elevation showed different placement of windows as well as a
longer canopy at least in the rendered illustration this evening. I thought maybe
if we were approving the plan, the architect could correct me if I am mistaken,
but I think there was a change between the plans that were submitted to the
Commission and the rendering that was presented this evening?
Mr. Dukarski: Steve Leinberger, the building, came in today and the floor plan was kind of
hard to follow because of some existing floor plan that we were making some
modifications to that and what Steve wanted, you see those two doors in the
front, and the plans we submitted to you showed one door with the bay
windows. That has been changed to two doors in the front and a bay window is
down at one end with an awning over the one door and window.
Mr. Alanskas: We will need a revised plan to show that.
Mr. Piercecchi: We will need to revise that date, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I think we can modify the plans to include the change in elevation as long as
that is the intent of the Commission.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't think they were serious enough to mention but you've got a good point.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Good
Luck and thanks for coming to Livonia.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-2-27 by Bryan
Gill requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto body repair and painting
facility(Auto Body Specialist Ltd.) on property located on the west side of
Stark Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 28.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated September 27, 1999, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
operate an auto body repair and painting facility 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 from the Engineering Division, dated September 29,
1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division
17212
has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
',...' signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third letter of correspondence
is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 1999, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 24, 1999, the site plan
for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
The parking area should be resealed and double striped. The required parking
for this proposal would be 54 spaces. The barrier free spaces must conform to
the Michigan Barrier Free Rules for size and locations. (2) All existing scrap
and debris needs to be removed from the site. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspection. The fourth item of correspondence is a letter from the
Division of Police, dated September 30, 1999, which reads as follows: "The
captioned petitions have all been reviewed by the Traffic Bureau. There are no
objections to the site plans as submitted. All sites have been visited, and there
are no concerns or recommendations to submit." The letter is signed by John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan Gill, 7315 Surfwood Dr., Fenton.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you explain your petition to us please?
',ft. Mr. Gill: I have three Auto Body Specialists such shops now. One of them is in Livonia
on Plymouth Road, the south side, east of Levan across from the Livonia
Transmission Plant. That is the facility that I am proposing that I move to the
Stark Road address. A couple of reasons are one,that I have outgrown that
location. We have residents to the back. Two, we have a lot of trouble with
keeping them happy as we expand and we move more cars into the yard. Three,
the building is not kept up in the manner that I keep my facilities and I am
leasing that so I would like to own and control the building. We found this
location, which as you know, used to be MoTech Body School. It's got a
perfect setup. The facility meets all the requirements to put a body repair
facility in there,to get the special waiver use. We thought this would be a good
place to expand. It is quite a bit larger than the location we have now. We are
putting in all new painting equipment in so that it will be state of the art. It will
meet all the requirements of the Health Department and Fire Department. We
do 99% insurance referral work. We don't do low end, it is all upscale high end
work. With my application, I submitted an invitation to you to come by my
Redford location. I don't if you had an opportunity to do that or not but that is
one of our other locations and that is how we do business. We keep our
buildings looking like that and everything is dressed up. It doesn't look like the
average body repair facility. I don't know if any of you had a chance to come
by there or not. Nobody stopped in.
,` Mr. Alanskas: Any questions?
Mr. LaPine: I didn't get any invitation. I didn't even know you had an operation
17213
Mr. Gill: I submitted the invitation with my letter of application. Maybe that wasn't the
correct way to do it.
Mr. LaPine: We all went out to this location. I didn't know you owned that location on
Plymouth Road. Is that the one where Volkswagon has some cars out there?
Mr. Gill: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Where is your location in Redford.
Mr. Gill: It is south of I-96,the Jefferies, on Inkster Road,the east side, next to the U-
Haul rental. It used to be the Haber Tool building.
Mr. LaPine: I wish I had known that, I would have checked that one out.
Mr. Gill: I'm not sure how I should have submitted that portion of it. When I turned in
my application, I assumed that everyone got a copy of that with the drawings.
Mr. LaPine: I have just one question. I think this is a good location for it because of where it
is located. What I worry about is how many junk vehicles will you have here?
I mean, will you be bringing in vehicles that an insurance company has said
they can't be repaired, then what happens? You don't use those parts or
anything like that do you?
Mr. Gill: We don't have any use for that. The insurance companies won't settle a loss
until the vehicle is moved to their location. When the insurance company totals
a vehicle, it is moved almost immediately, quicker than it would be if we were
doing the repair. So the longest the vehicle is in our lot is during the estimating
and determination of the repair.
Mr. LaPine: If the insurance company says it's a totaled
Mr. Gill It is out of there within 24 hours. Most insurance companies have a contract
with their tow yards to do that, or for their towing companies to do that, because
the faster they settle the claim obviously, the happier the customer is. They will
not settle without gaining possession of the vehicle.
Mr. LaPine: You have a number of bays where you can work on cars. How many normal
cars would be parked here waiting to be repaired.
Mr. Gill: The answer would be how rapidly we develop that location because we are
expanding from an 8,000 sq. ft. facility to about a 16,000 sq. ft. facility. As far
as waiting for repair, I would say that probably we keep as many in the building
as possible during that process but the cars that are not deemed totaled, would
probably be somewhere around 30, on the average.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
17214
Mr. Shane: The cars that are waiting to be repaired would be parked in the back of the
building, wouldn't they?
Mr. Gill: They will be stored in the rear of the building
Mr. Shane: Are you going to utilize the site all the way back to the rear of the property line?
Mr. Gill: Yes. Not for the parking. What we are going to do is stagger the parking. One
is if you drove through the parking lot,you notice that they have quite a few
plants and weeds growing up through the pavement, so to prevent that, I do it at
my Inkster Road location as well, it is smaller but so it is easier to do, we
stagger the cars. We park them in different areas, all behind the building. That
way, what happens is it keeps that growth down.
Mr. Shane: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a question for you. You say you are going to have 20 work stations.
Does that mean that you are going to have 20 employees working in that
building?
Mr. Gill: I don't remember the number of employees that I put on the site plan, fourteen
or fifteen. That includes the office staff as well, which will be three. Each
technician requires more than one car to work on.
`� Mr. Alanskas: Because you are waiting for parts and so on. In regards to your painting, is your
painting only done in a paint booth?
Mr. Gill: Only in a paint booth and on the prep deck. The prep deck is a paint work
station as well, which is on the drawing.
Mr. Alanskas: So there is no chance for paint spray to be leaving the building and going into
the air?
Mr. Gill: Absolutely not. Those are all controlled environments.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any further questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will
go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-177-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on October 19, 1999 on Petition 99-9-2-27 by Bryan Gill
requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto body repair and painting
facility(Auto Body Specialist Ltd.) on property located on the west side of
Stark Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 28 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-9-2-27 be approved subject to the following conditions:
17215
1) That the Site Plan/Floor Plan submitted by Auto Body Specialist Ltd., as
received by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1999, is hereby
``. approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined their
correspondence dated September 30, 1999:
- That the entire parking lot shall be resealed and shall be double
striped so as to provide no less than 54 parking spaces including
handicapped spaces of the required size and location;
- That all existing scrap and debris shall be removed from the site;
and
3) That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap
material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections
16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
'tow use; and
3) That the proposed use is consistent with other uses with similar
characteristics occurring in this area of the Industrial Corridor.
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. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-2-28 by Modern
Moving Company requesting waiver use approval to permit outdoor parking of
moving company vehicles on property located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 3.
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. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item of correspondence is a
letter from the Engineering Division, dated September 29, 1999, which reads
17216
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed
the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to
Nws' the proposal or the legal description contained therein, although we would like
to point out that the sidwell number listed on the petition was incorrect. The
correct sidwell number should be 009-99-0003-000. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item of correspondence is a letter from
the Inspection Department dated September 29, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 24, 1999, the site plan for the above
subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There is a
small amount of debris in the southeast corner that needs to be cleaned up. (2)
The parking areas need some minor repair. The parking areas also need to be
resealed and double striped. All barrier free parking is required to conform to
the Michigan Barrier Free Rules as to size and location. I trust this has
provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M.
Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. The third item of correspondence is a
letter from the Division of Police, dated September 30, 1999, which reads as
follows: "The captioned petitions have all been reviewed by the Traffic
Bureau. There are no objections to the site plans as submitted. All sites have
been visited, and there are no concerns or recommendations to submit." The
letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
item of correspondence is a letter from the Livonia Fire and Rescue, dated
October 6, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to permit outdoor parking of
r•► moving company vehicles 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. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jerry Bagazinski, Attorney for the petitioner, Dennis Rice. My business address is 32900 Five
Mile Road, Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there a reason why Mr. Rice is not here this evening?
Mr. Bagazinski: Yes. Unfortunately, Mr. Rice was detained and was not able to attend this
evening.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hale: Could you please tell us, Mr. Bagazinski, the current status of the 16th Court
proceeding? Are you representing him in that matter?
Mr. Bagazinski: No I am not. I understand that Mr. Rice did plead guilty and the judge has
taken the matter under advisement pending the outcome of the City Council
proceedings.
Mr. Hale: It is my understanding of how the process works is when a cease and desist
order is issued, you have two choices. You can either correspond or not
17217
correspond. If you don't correspond, it was my understanding in this case the
next step is the City files a complaint with the 16th District Court requesting
injunctive relief. You are ordered to stop this practice immediately, not simply
pay a fine and keep on doing it. I am wondering as far as the injunctive
process do you know the status of that at all?
Mr. Bagazinski: No.
Mr. Hale: O.K. And you have nothing whatsoever to do with that case?
Mr. Bagazinski: That is correct.
Mr. Hale: Is it the position right now of your client that he is willing to address some of
the concerns that we had visited previously, both before our body and the City
Council, including removal of the barbed wire....
Mr. Bagazinski: That is correct. I have had extensive discussions with my client regarding his
initial petition and what things he needs to do to clean up his property and to
make this a palatable petition for this body.
Mr. Hale: One thing I agree with Mr. Alanskas is it would be nice to have your client
here because I would like to know as one commissioner why it is we had to go
through this long drawn out process and require the City of Livonia to spend
money in court costs and our attorney's time in getting something that was
�+.. unnecessary. I guess I am wondering how we got to this point.
Mr. Bagazinski: I think that there were some communication problems with his initial petition.
He appeared here and his petition was approved and he thought he was done.
On the date of the hearing for the City Council approval, he did not attend. He
was attending a memorial service for his mother who had passed away. I think
there were a number of things that snowballed there. I don't think it was
clearly communicated to him what the expectations were from the City as to
what they were looking for in exchange for the approval of the waiver use.
Mr. Hale: My understanding is that he did not appear at the Council accidentally and then
it was re-put before the Council again at which point a denying resolution was
prepared because he wouldn't address the barbed wire. Am I following that
correctly?
Mr. Bagazinski: I think that subsequent to the denial, obviously we can question why this
petition was denied and it was pointed out to me that they have a significant
issue with the barbed wire he has surrounding his property. I spoke with him
and he is going to remove the barbed wire.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Hale, excuse me, did you say he is going to remove it or he has removed
it?
Mr. Bagazinski: I'm not sure what the status of that is right now. I don't know if it has been
removed but he said he is going to remove it.
17218
Mr. Hale: I guess the last question, I'm not trying to be overly difficult, but I am trying to
understand why it is that after he was denied by the Council, he continued to
engage in the practice?
Mr. Bagazinski: I think as a practical matter he was put in a very difficult position by the
denial. He operates a business with M-1 zoning. The business he operates is a
permissible use under the zoning classification. His alternative would have
been to allow those trucks to idle all night which I don't think is in anybody's
best interest here because they can idle under the zoning ordinance. The
problem that you have is that when you run a terminal you have to put all your
trucks underneath a roof to park them overnight. To the best of my knowledge
is done on any warehouse terminals here in the City. The only other alternative
would have been for him at great expense to cause the trucks to idle all night
which would have been a nuisance for the neighbors and I don't think that there
was any economic alternative available except to park the trucks at a remote
location which he did not have one available.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, reading the request, he is asking for 20 trucks, that is what he is allowed,
the largest of which would have a 24 foot box. When I was out there the other
day, I noticed he has tractor trailers. I imagine a trailer is more than 24 foot
box, is it not.
Nklaw
Mr. Alanskas: Some are 48.
Mr. LaPine: Why does he have tractor trailers parked on his property when according to
what he asked for is 24 foot box type of truck? As a matter of fact he has some
trailers parked in the rear right up against the southerly property line. There
were three there this morning. There were two other large trucks parked on the
westerly side of the building. On this other parcel, I understand he can park the
semis there, but I didn't think he could park them at this location.
Mr. Alanskas: May I interject. You see this is the problem we have with Mr. Rice not being
here because I am sure there are a lot of questions we want to ask him that I
can see right now that you can't answer.
Mr. Bagazinski: Unfortunately, Mr. Rice called me about 5:30 p.m. this evening and he runs a
moving and storage company and he had to go out and he had to work at his
business.
Mr. Alanskas: This is not the first time he has done that.
Mr. Bagazinski: I understand that and it is regrettable, but I am here as his representative and
I'll do my best to answer any questions that you have or satisfy any concerns
that you have.
17219
Mr. Alanskas: Let me just ask you the question Mr. LaPine asked because we have two other
companies here in Livonia that are restricted in the length in the vehicles they
park and they go beyond that and how can we police if we give you this
approving resolution in regards to a 24 foot box when right now you have over
24 feet and do not have the right to do that that you won't do that?
Mr. Bagazinski: I'm not sure where you are coming up with the information regarding the 24
foot ....
Mr. LaPine: It says here, "In most respects, the current Petition is essentially the same as the
previous request. Information provided indicates that the maximum number of
moving company vehicles that the petitioner intends to park or store on the
subject westerly parcel is 20,the largest of which would be trucks with a 24
foot box." This is our staff notes.
Mr. Bagazinski: I don't know who prepared that for you.
Mr. Alanskas: That is prepared by the staff of the Planning Department.
Mr. Bagazinski: If there is anything that is incorrect there is that he operates a moving storage
company and would like the opportunity to park his vehicles on the site. You
have inferred a fact here that I don't know is necessarily correct that he is
limited to these 24 foot boxes and if you are telling me that is what it is....
�..• Mr.Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, where did we get that information regarding the 24 foot boxes?
Mr. Taormina: That is through a communication between the owner of the company and the
Planning Department, so if it is misrepresented, we apologize, but I guess that
would be even a better reason why the owner should be here to represent the
accurate facts.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any more questions, Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: No.
Mr. Shane: Question to the staff. Does the legal description for this total use include the
RUF portion? The 50 foot portion. The reason I ask while you are looking
that up is that my understanding is that that 50 feet extension in the RUF
district was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that correct? The use
of that rear 50 feet.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. There was approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals to utilize
the northerly 50 feet of the RUF portion of this site for M-1.
Mr. Shane: For the purpose of parking? Is that the way it is stated?
Mr. Taormina: I'll have to verify that.
17220
Mr. Shane: My question was, I guess, if this waiver use is approved, can it include a piece
of property zoned RUF even though the Zoning Board allowed an extension of
the use. If the Zoning Board allows an extension of an existing use, if it is a
permitted use, fine. My question is, can we include that 50 feet in a request for
a waiver use as opposed to a permitted use? See what I am getting at?
Mr. Taormina: That is a good question and, although I will have to verify this with the Law
Department, the action of the Planning Commission will be for the waiver use
approval for that portion of the property that is zoned M-1. Any use of the
property not in compliance with the RUF district requirements would have to
be reviewed and considered separately by the Zoning Board of Appeals, if they
haven't already done so. The action of the Zoning Board may still be in effect
relative to that portion of the site that is zoned RUF. To answer your question
directly, your action this evening would apply to only that portion that is zoned
M-1 for which the waiver use has been requested.
Mr. Shane: So in your analysis the petitioner may not use the RUF portion to store his
trucks?
Mr .Taormina: Only if it is approved separately by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there anymore questions from the Commissioners? Then I will go to the
�.. audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Tom Clayton, 20421 Merriman Road, I am just behind that. I am not clear as to what the
proposal is and where the parking is going to be, because where it has on this
paper is shaded out is the building. There is nothing there but a building
except slightly to the west,there is some parking.
Mr. Alanskas: You mean the west portion of the building, for the 20 vehicles?
Mr. Clayton: Is that what you are talking about. You are not talking about the RUF area
directly behind? It wasn't clear in this notice.
Mr. Alanskas: Now I hope it is clear for you.
Mr. Clayton: Yes, it is now.
Mr. Alanskas: Anything else?
Mr. Clayton: They did mention here about that area.
Mr. Alanskas: We'll have to look into that about the legal description and make sure they
cannot use it. They possibly could have a variance from the ZBA but we will
have to check that out.
17221
Mr. Clayton: I hope they don't because at 3:00 a.m. they start up their diesels and idle all
morning long.
Mr. Alanskas: Let me ask you a question because you live right there. Do you see a lot of
vehicles that are over 40 feet of length that park in the parking facility?
Mr. Clayton: I really don't take much note of it. I am the second one back and there are a lot
of trees between us. The think what bothers me is the noise and the diesel
smoke which comes in early in the morning and they have a loud speaker,
which you can hear 10 blocks away, even a guy who has a hearing aid,
probably can hear it.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
James Day, 31478 Merriwood in the condominium complex there. It is mentioned here,
moving company vehicles on property. Does that mean there is going to be
more vehicles moved onto the property than there are now?
Mr. Alanskas: They are going to have, if approved, a total of 20 vehicles to park there.
Mr. Day: So they aren't going to have anymore vehicles there than what is there now?
Mr. Alanskas: That is correct.
r.. Mr. Day: O.K. I was going to say if they do ....
Mr. Alanskas: Not 20 more than what they have there now.
Mr. Day: Because what the gentleman is saying is correct. We are right there almost
directly behind the mall but there aren't any trees, we've got open space there.
They have a small wall, if anything, if they could double the wall, that would
help, but it is awfully noisy back there.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? Seeing no one else, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-178-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Department on October 19,1999, on Petition 99-9-2-28 by Modern
Moving Company requesting waiver use approval to permit outdoor parking of
moving company vehicles on property located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 3 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-
9-2-28 be tabled to November 9, 1999.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Would you please make sure that Mr. Rice is here. If he is not, we are going to have
a problem.
17222
Mr. Bagazinski: I'll impress that upon him.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-2-29 by LaShish,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection
with a full service restaurant (LaShish) proposed to be located within Newburgh
Plaza on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Fitzgerald Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item of correspondence is a
letter from the Engineering Division, dated September 30, 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. The following legal description should be used in connection with
this petition: 'That part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, T. 1S., R. 9E., City
of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan described as beginning at a point distant
South 89°35'20"East along the North line of Section 17, 307.00 feet and South
00°24'40" West, 477.00 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 17 and
proceeding thence South 89°35'20"East, 55.00 feet; thence South 00°24'40"
West, 140.00 feet; thence North 89°35'20" West, 55.00 feet; thence North
'"" 00°24'40"East, 140.00 feet to the point of beginning.' We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item of correspondence is a letter from
the Livonia Fire and Rescue dated October 13, 1999,which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
utilize a Class "C"license in connection with a full service restaurant, LaShish,
proposed to be located on property at the above referenced address. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The third item of correspondence is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated October 15, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of October 6, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been
reviewed. There is a current Class C License located within 1000 feet of the
proposed location. The utilization of a Class C License at this location will
require that the City Council waive the 1000 foot separation requirement. I
trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by
David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Cashan, Vice President for LaShish, 760 Thayer,Northville. We are requesting a
waiver use for a Class C license. I want to tell you a little bit about LaShish.
LaShish has been in business for 10 years. Livonia will be our ninth location
... coming up. Some of the other cities that we have right now are Farmington
Hills, Canton, West Bloomfield, Dearborn. In our establishments, beer, wine
and alcohol doesn't really play a major role, it is secondary. We are primarily a
17223
family restaurant. We don't have any happy hours or drink specials. We
encourage families to come in. We like to offer the occasional beer or glass of
```. wine with dinner. Some people enjoy that, I know I do myself. We put all of
our staff through intensive training over at our corporate office in Dearborn.
We have an alcohol awareness program. We have enjoyed great success in all
of the cities that we have been in and we look forward to being in the Livonia
business community.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there going to be any outside alterations to the building or is there just going
to be a sign saying "LaShish"?
Mr. Cashan: Just a sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I ask that, we were going through Warren Sunday and there was a
LaShish there and it was really wild. The building was pretty wild.
Mr. Cashan: That is a pretty unique building. I believe that was a Ram's Horn or a Denny's.
That building is an exception to most of our establishments.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the personality and character of the Newburgh Plaza will not be modified.
Mr. Cashan: Absolutely not.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is fine.
Mr. LaPine: Are you transmitting a liquor license from another location?
Mr. Cashan: I believe so, yes.
Mr. LaPine: Are you buying one from somebody in Wayne County?
Mr. Cashan: I don't know exactly. I apologize but I believe so, yes.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Cashan, my question doesn't have anything to do with your request here
tonight, but I have concerns with traffic safety in front of where your proposed
building is going to be. I wonder if you speak frequently with Mr. Frankel?
Mr. Cashan: We do often. We are on very good terms with Mr. Frankel, this will be our
third location with them.
Mrs. Koons: Would you please have Mr. Frankel contact this office and they will give him
my work phone number because I have some serious concerns about the traffic
that comes in off Newburgh across the front of that shopping center. I think
you know what I mean.
Mr. Cashan: I'll do that.
17224
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? I have a few questions. What are your hours going to be there?
Mr. Cashan: Sunday through Thursday from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. On the weekend to
either 11:00 P.M. or 12:00 P.M.
Mr. Alanskas: Is your biggest business for people being there during lunch or dinner?
Mr. Cashan: During dinner.
Mr. Alanskas: So that during dinner, which would be after 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Cashan: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Because the reason I am asking is because AAA next door to you closes at
5:00 P.M. so possibly when they have their dinner crowd they won't have a
problem with traffic or parking, hopefully. Question number two, what
percentage are your sales for liquor and beer? In your other facilities?
Mr. Cashan: I would say approximately 3%to 5%.
Mr. Alanskas: This has nothing to do with your request but how are you coming on the inside
of the building because it looks like you are at a stagnation, doing nothing.
Mr. Cashan: We are coming along pretty well. We hope to be open by the Christmas season
because that is the time to open up.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are working on the inside of the building?
Mr. Cashan: Yes we are.
Mr. Alanskas: I know you are waiting because you wanted to get your other restaurants open
and going before you opened here.
Mr. Cashan: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: Because you were going to open, possibly, in the summertime but you put it off
to December. But December is the date that you are shooting for?
Mr. Cashan: Yes it is.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else have any questions?I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? See no one, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
17225
#10-179-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on October 19, 1999, on Petition 99-9-2-29 by LaShish,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C License in connection
with a full service restaurant (LaShish) proposed to be located within Newburgh
Plaza on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Fitzgerald Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-9-2-29 be approved
subject to the waiving of the 1,000 foot separation requirement as set forth in
Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
4) That the use of a Class C License is a normal part of the operation of the
restaurant proposed for the subject premises.
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. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You have an approving resolution to go before the City Council. This
concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now begin the
Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience may
speak in support or opposition to these items.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Petition 99-2-2-6 by
ECM-Traylor-Jay Dee requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to expand the
outside storage area to allow a precast concrete product on property located at
39201 Amrhein Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you Mr. Hale. I have before me a letter from ECM-Traylor dated
October 19, 1999, saying they would like to withdraw the petition stating "they
have decided to set-up our Manufacturing Plant at the job site in Detroit,
Michigan" with a thank you to our staff and it is a withdrawal. We will pass
that along to our staff for their records. Thank you.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-GB-8 by Parz
Associates, on behalf of the Plymouth Square Shopping Center, requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section
17226
18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 31153 Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 35.
Nifty
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Merriman and
Denne. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of
the protective wall that is required between a commercial zoned property and a
residentially zoned property. On the subject site is the Plymouth Square
Shopping Center. This center is bordered by a RUF, Rural Urban Farm, zoning
district to the south. Presently there is a masonry screen wall that extends
almost the entire length of the south property. There is a section of the wall
missing at the southwest corner of the site next to the rear parking lot entrance
lot off Merriman Road. In a letter submitted with the landscape plan, the
applicant explains that approximately four months ago a small portion of the
screen wall failed and was removed. The area in question is 113 feet in length
by 40 feet in depth. Presently it is bermed and is landscaped with grass and a
few trees. The submitted landscape plan shows that the applicant is planning on
planting five-5 ft. high Austrian Pine trees and two-7 ft. high Colorado Spruce
trees within the area. In staffs opinion the proposed landscaping of the
greenbelt should provide adequate screening of the parking lot from the adjacent
house.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No,there are no items of correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Seymour Mandel, 26111 W. Fourteen Mile, Franklin, Michigan. I am here representing Mr.
Parz who is in the audience. We worked on this project as architects several
years ago when we did some renovation work there and did the first addition
and for several years the project has been there under Mr. Parz's management.
Apparently when the original site plan, that I found in our files, was approved
there may not even have been a condition that we put a wall there because there
was no parking in that area. It was kind of a drive through. Now that we have
the misfortune of having the wall start to tip, partly because there is a berm
there now and apparently it has created some pressure on one side of the wall
and it started to tip so rather than have it fall on somebody or hurt them, the
Building Department was aware there were some defects in the wall, Mr. Parz
determined for the safety of the area to just take the wall down. It was a
masonry wall construction. Having done so we don't feel there is any harm or
interference that will occur to the neighbors property from cars or traffic coming
through that drive because virtually no one ever parks in that part of the parking
lot area. There is plenty of parking in the front of the shopping center. There is
plenty of parking around the building immediately to the confines of the
building. There is still over 300 to 350 feet of wall protecting the area where
most of the cars are and the entire rear part of the building is not occupied after
5:30 or 6:00 in the evening, for the most part. We feel that with the existing
berm and landscaping in that area it would be much more attractive and more of
17227
a aesthetically valuable condition rather than to replace it with another wall at
that particular location on the site.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Questions?
Mr. LaPine: Where the wall was is in the area of the berm. It still shows where the wall was.
It shows the indention.
Mr. Mandel: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Were there footings under that wall?
Mr. Mandel: Yes. You can see the footings in the ground. There are concrete footings there.
Mr. LaPine: I don't understand how the wall got knocked down. By an accident or did it just
fall over? I can't understand what happened.
Mr. Mandel: It has been my experience that unless you use a poured concrete with steel
reinforcements, if there is even the slightest imbalance between the dirt levels
on either side of the wall and because of the frost conditions we have here in
Michigan, because of the freeze/thaw cycles, if one side of a wall is up even six
inches higher than the other side of the wall with dirt,that is enough of a tork
action on the wall so that when it freezes to start to move the wall and over
several years, you know it won't happen right away but if it keeps happening it
�.. just keeps nudging that wall a little bit every year and the walls don't really
come back. It's like a debilitating condition where it might move slightly and
eventually they start to fall over.
Mr. LaPine: So the original wall that was up there was not a poured concrete wall, it was a
block wall?
Mr. Mandel: It was a block masonry wall.
Mr. LaPine: If the wall is required, would the wall line up with the existing wall that is there
now?
Mr. Mandel: I think what happened was the neighbor had some flowers and shrubs and
things along that property area and the City didn't require a wall but because
they started complaining about it, they offset the wall around the flowers and
my understanding is that the neighbor still wants to keep the flowers there but if
we were going to put a wall back, we would want it to run straight through like
the rest of the wall.
Mr. LaPine: When I was out there I looked at the wall on Saturday, I didn't see any flowers
there. The neighbor has concrete and it goes quite a way over. It goes past the
existing wall that is there now. If the wall is required, it wouldn't take up that
much of the neighbors next door and Mr. Parz has indicated to us that that is his
property anyway.
17228
Mr. Mandel: That is right.
Mr. LaPine: I don't see what the problem is here by just extending the wall. Right now
we've got it all the way down from Denne Avenue all the way down to this
location, there is a wall. When you start at Denne Avenue, he's got about
maybe 8 to 10 feet landscaped area then the wall and it's lower at Denne then it
goes up to the height and it goes all the way to this location, then it goes all the
way to this location, then it stops. So I don't understand why we can't just
continue the wall. I just don't like having the wall stop then have landscaping.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Mandel: You are talking about a main street, Merriman Road, which has enormous
amounts of traffic on it.
Mr. LaPine: I'm not talking about the wall going all the way. You could stop just like the
wall on Denne so that when people are driving out they wouldn't have to look a
the wall for a safety factor.
Mr. Mandel: Well so, people coming down Merriman Road, if you brought it all the to the
street...
Mr. LaPine: I am not asking you to bring it all the way down to the street. We could do the
same thing we've got at Denne's. It doesn't go all the way out to the street at
Denne's. There is some landscaping. There about six, or eight, or ten feet of
�... landscaping, then the wall starts,then the first maybe six feet is down low then
it goes up to the height. I just don't see what the big problem is.
Mr. Parz, 31151 Plymouth Road, Livonia. Let me explain why the wall was constructed later.
When I originally owned the property, when I originally bought the property,
the City of Livonia owned the property over there. They had some how gotten
involved in a condemnation that took down 40 feet by 120 feet, and when my
site plan was approved, the original Plymouth Square,that piece of property that
was to the south of me that we are now talking about, that has a berm on it was
owned by the City of Livonia. The City of Livonia owned that piece of
property, asked me to do them a favor. I said what is the favor. They said
"Ron, we can't do anything with this piece of property. You can't build on it,
you can't do anything with it. would you do us a favor?" I said "what is that?"
We'll give you the piece of property. I said that is wonderful of you but you
want to know something, you take the foundation that was there. You take out
the building slab that was there and we in turn will give you that property. I
said that is wonderful but you have to put up the commercial wall. They said,
because you own the property already, where is the commercial wall that
separates the residential? They said you don't have to put it up Ron. Just take
care of that, bulldoze that over. Put a green berm over there and take care of it.
So I did exactly that. About a year later,the lady kept insisting that she has a
wall, has a wall, has a wall. The same Planning Commission came to me and
said Parz, "do us another favor". I said what? "Put up another wall." They said
put up another wall because we can't stand this pressure. I said I had an
agreement with you people before not to put a wall that I don't have to bother
17229
with this. As long as I did my part of the understanding, we'll take care of it,
o.k.? So I did exactly that. Now the wall is tipping over, falling down.
`"" Nobody parks over there. Nobody in the world parks over there. O.K. I did
what I was supposed to do. I put the berm up. I knocked out the foundation.
Hauled all that rubble away that was originally the responsibility of the City
and now you are asking me to put up a wall over there that I originally agreed
not to do. You promised that I didn't have to do it.
Mr. LaPine: Let me say, I didn't make any promises.
Mr. Parz: You know something, the City of Livonia did and I'm addressing the City of
Livonia while I am here.
Mr. LaPine: I don't know what happened between you and the City of Livonia, if you've got
all this...
Mr. Parz: You know something, I have an approved site plan for Plymouth Square that
shows that the wall was not needed when I put the property up. When I put the
property up and put it in service, I have an approved site plan
Mr. LaPine: Was the home there?
Mr. Parz: Absolutely, the home was there. The home was there since 1954.
'... Mr. LaPine: Then a wall was required.
Mr. Parz: If the wall was required, why didn't the City of Livonia request that the wall had
to go up?
Mr. LaPine: I don't know.
Mr. Parz: Because I didn't own the property until much later, Mr. LaPine. It was given to
me.
Mr. LaPine: I am only one person. I feel the wall should go up.
Mr. Parz: Mr. LaPine, I am just explaining to you why the wall was not put up.
Mr. Alanskas: We're not going to debate the issue. Do you understand what Mr. LaPine is
saying though? Are there any other questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: It is rare that I don't agree with my colleague, LaPine. Bill, I am really of the
opinion that a greenbelt at this location is far superior aesthetically, offers
adequate screening than extending that wall, that current masonry wall. I've
looked at that site a couple of times and I understand there is going to be some
additional landscaping put on top of that wall. It will be totally screened and it
;....... really looks nice and putting that wall up just for a few feet,I see no need for it
in this case. Normally I am for a wall.
17230
Mr. LaPine: Well, that is your opinion. I disagree with it.
`liw"' Mr. Shane: Mr. Parz or Mr. Mandel, the existing masonry wall, other than this portion, the
portion east of there, is that a poured concrete wall?
Mr. Mandel: I believe it is.
Mr. Shane: So hopefully that one isn't going to fall down like this one did.
Mr. Parz: Mr. Shane, that is not a poured concrete wall. It is a block wall, reinforced and
it is at a proper grade. It has been there now since I've owned the place and
before that.
Mr. Shane: The difference between this location and the other is the berm.
Mr. Parz: The berm. You see, I built the berm, first off, and landscaped it within the plan.
Then it was later required of me to put the wall in. They asked me to put the
wall in.
Mr. Shane: I understand. My only concern was that the wall that is up there now is going to
fall down either because its not properly reinforced.
Mr. Parz: It won't happen, Mr. Shane.
r..• Mrs. Koons: Question to Mark. Mr. Taormina, we do not have any communication for this
meeting, but has anyone from our staff spoken with the neighbor or have we had
any communication with the neighbor?
Mr. Taormina: I am going to let Scott answer that because I believe he did receive a call from
one of the neighbors.
Mr. Miller: I'm not sure if that was the neighbor but we did receive a call and we sent a
letter to the abutting property owner and unless she is here in the audience, that
is the only contact we have had.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Did you say she is in the audience?
Mr. Miller: I don't know if she is.
Mr. Alanskas: I will just make a comment. I think if we did send a letter to the person living
behind the proposed permitted landscape berm, I think she would be here and
she is not here. That is my only comment and with that a motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine: Should we go to the audience to see if anyone wants to speak on this petition?
Mr. Alanskas: There is no one here. Does anyone want to speak for or against this? Seeing
no one, a motion is in order.
17231
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was
#10-180-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-9-GB-8 by Parz Associates, on behalf of the
Plymouth Square Shopping, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the
protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property
located at 31153 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the 113 ft. by 40 ft. landscaped greenbelt next to the southwest
corner of the property, as shown on the plan received by the Planning
Commission on September 22, 1999, shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That any changes to this area shall require Planning Commission and
City Council review and approval;
3) That gates shall be installed and maintained on the existing trash
dumpster enclosure and when not in use, closed at all times.
Mr. Piercecchi: We noticed that the dumpster does not have gates on it. We need to get that
remedied.
ftiro► Mr. Parz: The dumpster has gates but what happens is that they have been torn off
Mr. Piercecchi: If they are torn off, there are no gates.
Mr. Alanskas: Any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I am going to vote against this. I think the rationale that we are using here is the
fact that because the wall was there and fell down, and originally was there and
nobody had any complaints of the wall being there but now that it has fallen
over and it is better to have a landscape there. Why didn't they just leave
landscape there originally and put the wall originally? It just doesn't make
sense to me.
Mr. Piercecchi: Originally, Bill, I guess it was all flat land and now it has a berm on it and I
thought it really looked good with it the way it was and we now get additional
landscaping on it, it will look even better.
Mr. Alanskas: I'll make a comment. I've been out there two or three times and I think the
berm is very attractive and I think there has been a problem between the
property and the people behind and we are not going to go into what the
problems were but I think with the additional screen they are going to put up
going by Merriman Road that berm looks really good right now and with the
additional screening, it should take care of the problems. With that we will call
the roll call on an approving resolution.
17232
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Koons
NAYS: LaPine, Hale
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Alanskas, Acting 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 99-10-GB-9 by Michele
Schmidt, on behalf of the Schmidt Insurance Agency, requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the
zoning ordinance for property located at 16013 Middlebelt Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest corner of Middlebelt and Puritan. The
applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective
wall that is required between an office zoned property and a residentially zoned
property. The subject property is bordered by a RUF, Rural Urban Farm,
zoning district along its west or rear property line. The petitioner is requesting
to retain the existing landscape greenbelt that separates the insurance office
from the adjacent residential house. The submitted landscape plan shows that
the area in question is 18 ft. wide and 90 ft. across and contains six 28 ft. high
Colorado Spruce trees and five 21 ft. high Crab trees. An onsite inspection
�.. shows that the existing greenbelt is a very ample buffer and provides a more
than adequate screening between the two uses.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:No,there is no correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michelle Schmidt, 16013 Middlebelt, Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: You are asking for a permanent waiver?
Ms. Schmidt: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Mark,the property to the north of this is vacant and I assume it is zoned either
commercial or OS, office services. If a building goes up there and that abuts to
a residential property, a wall would be required, is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:Yes.
17233
Mr. LaPine: I guess that is my concern. I've got nothing against this petition. I think it is a
good variance but the partial next door does not have the vegetation that this
N"" one has.
Mr. Taormina: You are saying that along their westerly property line a wall would be required
when that is developed.
Mr. LaPine: Right So consequently I am not opposed to this one but I think it is what we
are going to run into this situation as on the last one. We are going to start out
allowing a berm and landscaping and then maybe require a wall and then the
next thing we will require a berm and then a wall. We have to have some
continuity here. You just can't go back and forth and I just don't like it.
Mr. Shane: I think that behooves us to remember these plans when we do this so that when
the next guy comes along, if we are cognizant of it and we leave a big enough
green belt to continue it or a wall, whatever the case, I agree with Bill it should
be continuous and the last case wasn't but after some circumstances there that
maybe provided for the greenbelt. In this case we have the chance to continue
and what you have to do is make sure the greenbelt that continues north is at
least the same width as this one or something close to it.
Mr. Alanskas: And just as much density.
Mr. Shane: Exactly. We just have to remember this.
NNW
Mr. Piercecchi: I believe we have two different things here. One is the initial study of the wall
or greenbelt and the other one is just finishing it off. I think we are talking
apples and oranges here but I don't object either way.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition ? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-181-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-10-GB-9 by Michele Schmidt, on behalf of
the Schmidt Insurance Agency, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for
the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for
property located at 16013 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on
the plan received by the Planning Commission on September 30, 1999,
shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That any changes to this area shall require Planning Commission and
City Council review and approval.
17234
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This petition has been approved and it will go on to City Council with
an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of
our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will
only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commissioners.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen
Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry out/sit-
down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the
north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there a motion to remove this petition from the table?
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-182-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 13, 1999 on Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen
Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry out/sit-
down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the
north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31 be taken from the table.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No,there is no correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia. Mr. Alanskas, I made some remarks last
week as the study session to the Commissioners. The things that were said then
were true then are true now. This is not the type of case that I would normally
take but when I heard this young man's story, I felt a compelling need to try and
help him out and I am going to try and do that even after he is able to get open if
you so approve the site plan. It is an unfortunate story and I think a lot of it
comes his lack of understanding of the American way. I wish I had met him
some six months ago and represented him because he would never have been in
the situation he is in right now. He's got a lease there that he thought he would
have a full scale restaurant. Obviously because of the ordinance and zoning
there is not able to and not only that he has been paying rent for the last four
months and he has been paying high rent. He has been paying rent for what
would be a restaurant about three times the size of what he can have in there.
He is about a week away from being able to open up. The site plan is a very
simple site plan. It has 15 tables and 30 chairs. He really needs that to get
started and try to make some money. In the mean time he is going to depend on
me to try work out some magic to be able to expand his restaurant. I don't know
whether I am going to be able to do it or whether we are going to be able to get
17235
some other type of operation in there but I really think that type of solution is
really necessary and you know, it is not your problem. It's not the City of
°"' Livonia's problem, I will try to help him out and if there is a way so be it.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I have one, I
wasn't there for the study, but on your drawing for your tables, it shows 15
tables at only two chairs per table. What would stop you, if you wanted to add
another two chairs per table and go from 30 to 60 chairs?
Mr. Tangora: Only the ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas: I know only the ordinance is there but if we don't enforce it, we can't go there
every week to check on it. What is the size of the table?
Mr. Tangora: I think they are small tables.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you put four chairs around these tables?
Mr. Tangora: Yes. I think you could. I think they are showed that way only because I think
restaurants in shopping centers, it is normal for two people to come in. If they
did have three or four people, then they would move two tables and move the
chairs around.
Mr. Alanskas: I think it is very important to the petitioner that he knows that the petition before
r.. us is only for 30 seats and no more. In other words, if he gets busy or down the
road he wants to put in 60 chairs, he can't do that. He is only being approved
for 30.
Mr. Tangora: I understand that. That is why I am trying to help him out and he's got this
problem and if we do try to help him out and he violates the zoning laws, it is
going to reflect on him and it is going to reflect on anything that we try to do for
him.
Mr. Alanskas: Hearing all that a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#10-183-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, on Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen
Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry out/sit-
down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the
north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-5-2-19 be approved subject to a limitation on the
maximum number of customer seats to be provided in the restaurant of 30 seats
for the following reasons:
17236
1) That the proposed use is in compliance 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
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You will go forth with an approving resolution.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, knowing you, you will use that magic to get him through this.
Mr. Tangora: I really hope that I am able to do something for him.
Mr. Alanskas: You've got your approving resolution. Good luck.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Elmira
ti..• Court Subdivision located south of Plymouth Road and east of Levan Road
between Elmira Avenue dead-end and Arthur Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 32.
Mr. Taormina: The Final Plat has been submitted by the proprietor of the Subdivision and is
drawn in full compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat, and the financial
assurances required have been deposited with the City Clerk and there is a letter
to that effect. Also the Engineering Department has reviewed the Final Plat and
in their letter of September 9, 1999, similarly is recommending approval.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-184-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Elmira Court Subdivision proposed to be located south of Plymouth
Road and east of Levan Road between Elmira Avenue dead-end and Arthur
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is substantially in agreement with the Preliminary
Plat;
......, 2) That no reporting City department has objected to approval of the Final
Plat; and
17237
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City
have been taken care of
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It has been approved.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the last item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 792nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 21, 1999.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-185-99 RESOLVED that,the Minutes of the 792nd Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 are
approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 794th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on October 19, 1999 was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
44:/// -1-
4J&vU4Q
Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST: r��dt"`�,
Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman
/rw