HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-11-01 13721
MINUTES OF THE 693rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMRMIISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 1, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 693rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
William TaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg
C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
4.. have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-8-1-19 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #181-94, proposing to rezone property described as being
Tax Item No. 46 005 99 0040 000, located on the west side of Melvin
Avenue between Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 2 from R-5 to RUFA.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since the City is the petitioner in this case would
you, before getting into the correspondence, give us the
background as to how that R-5 parcel came about in the midst
of all the RUFA, and secondly why the City Council wanted this
public hearing to occur.
Mr. Nagy: The R-5 goes back quite a while. It was established at the
time the lot itself was first developed with the home that is
illustrated on that drawing. Most recently in connection with
a proposed lot split for the south 70 feet of this area it was
13722
divided to create another buildable lot. The City Council, in
evaluating the lot split request, evaluated the existing
zoning on subject property as well as the zoning of the
surrounding area. Upon their examination of that map they
realized the subject parcel was the only parcel in that area
zoned in the R-5 classification. The majority of the area is
RUFA as illustrated on this map. In that connection the
Council asked the Planning Commission, pursuant to their
resolution, to determine whether or not the R-5 zoning
classification continues to make sense in view of the lot
split and the other development in the area. We have come
down on the side saying it no longer does in the sense it is
really only a spot in an area of predominatily RUF zoning.
The area already has the existing home on it and meets the RUF
zoning district regulations. With respect to the area to the
south that was divided to create another lot in that area,
while it doesn't meet the RUF zoning classification it doesn't
even meet the R-5 for that matter, but it closely approximates
the area of the RUF, 21,780 sq. ft. I should also add that
there was recently a Zoning Board of Appeals grant to allow a
house to be constructed on that split-off parcel of land so
that lot is now non-conforming and will continue to be
non-conforming. It will closer approximate the RUFA standards
than it does the current R-5. So we think we can eliminate a
spot zoning of R-5 to make it more compatible with the zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, the lot split did occur
soft. and the Zoning Board has granted a variance, so without
regards to what happens here this evening that house will be
built.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Engebretson: Do we have any correspondence in connection with this
petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner in this case we will go
immediately to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing
to speak for or against this proposed zoning change.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-1-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-182-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on November 1, 1994 on Petition 94-8-1-19
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
13723
#181-94, proposing to rezone property described as being Tax
Item No. 46 005 99 0040 000, located on the west side of
Melvin Avenue between Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the
L.. Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from R-5 to RUFA, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 94-8-1-19 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area.
2) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the
surrounding zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for one uniform
zoning district in the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-2-29 by Quality Dining, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant to be located in an existing
shopping center located on the north side of Six Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
8.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
that ingress and egress must be supplied by two separate
driveways and only one driveway is shown on the site plan.
They further state the proposed operation of a full service
restaurant will not change the parking requirements that
currently exist nor will it create any additional deficiencies
at this site. We have also received letters from the Fire
Marshal and Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no
objections to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever
comments you feet are appropriate.
Bruce Phillips, 2011 Bayou Dr. , West Bloomfield, 48323: I have a couple of
brief comments. I just wanted to give you a little
introduction. I am Vice President in charge of Bruegger's
Bagel Bakery for a company called Quality Dining. Quality
13724
Dining is a franchise restaurant company. We own and operate
48 Burger King restaurants, 16 Chili's and a couple of other
restaurant concepts, and the one that we are proposing to put
into this site is called Bruegger's Bagel Bakery. We have
recently opened three Bruegger's throughout the Detroit area.
One is in Grosse Pointe. The other one is in Farmington Hills
and the third one was just opened this week in Ann Arbor. We
have plans to do a good number more throughout the Detroit
area. We have another one under construction right now in
Canton and several other leases are being negotiated. Very
briefly for those who may not be familiar with Bruegger's, it
is a full service restaurant concept and our hisiness is
pretty much split 50/50 between carry out and dining in. We
bake our bagels fresh all day long. We have a high quality
product. We have a high quality cream cheese made in
different flavors. We have very good sandwiches, an
outstanding cup of coffee, one of the best in the business we
are told, and a number of other fresh and very good tasting
food items. The response that we have received so far from
the communities that we are in, particularly Grosse Pointe and
Farmington Hills, has just been outstanding. We meet a very
significant market need and demand in these communities, and I
believe the same would hold true in Livonia, particularly in
that section of Livonia. We have been negotiating on this
site for a fairly short period of time, I would say over the
last five to six weeks, and everything, we thought, was going
smoothly until last week when it came to our attention that
there may be some issues with regard to parking. That was the
`r.. first time that had come to our attention. We are hoping that
will not be the case here. We believe our business is
complimentary to the other businesses in that center because
primarily our traffic will be in the morning. We also do some
lunch business and very, very little dinner business. In
fact, we close at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, you are aware there are currently three establishments
that do dispense food at Laurel Commons with a total of 215
seats?
Mr. Phillips: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think that this is going to harm your ability to
survive in this area?
Mr. Phillips: Not at all. I think our business is totally unique and
different from the other restaurants that are currently
operating there. The Boston Chicken does mostly dinner
hisiness with maybe a little bit of lunch. The Japanese
restaurant I am sure does primarily a dinner business with
some lunch. We are primarily breakfast with some lunch. I
would look at our business as being totally unique and
separate from those.
Mr. Piercecchi: So you are not in competition with the other three. You feel
you are very compatible then?
Mr. Phillips: Very compatible.
13725
Mr. Alanskas: What time do you open in the morning?
Mr. Phillips: We will open at either 6:00 or 6:30 a.m.
\I. Mr. Alanskas: How many days a week?
Mr. Phillips: We are open seven days a week.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say breakfast, do you also serve bacon and eggs or
just strictly bagels and choose?
Mr. Phillips: Bagels only. We do not do eggs or bacon or anything like
that.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a large sit-down business in the morning for
breakfast?
Mr. Phillips: Our breakfast is some sit down in the morning but primarily
carry out.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent is carry out?
Mr. Phillips: I would say throughout the day our carry-out business is about
50%. I am not sure in the morning if it is stronger or less
but I would say probably in the morning it is a little bit
stronger. In fact, I would say yes it is.
Mr. LaPine: John, it is my understanding there is not a parking
\. deficiency. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: Correct, pursuant to our ordinance and from the report I read
from the Inspection Department.
Mr. rapine: There is not a parking problem so we can eliminate that
problem as far as the parking is concerned. I am interested
in two questions. Number one, you say primarily all your
business is for breakfast, which would be from 7:00 a.m. until
9:00 a.m. , I would presume?
Mr. Phillips: That is a good portion of our business.
Mr. LaPine: The Japanese restaurant I would presume is not even open
during those hours. Papa Romano's is probably not open at
that hour. The restaurant trade that is going to be generated
there in the early morning hours would be strictly you. That
gives us noon time, which could be a parking problem contrary
to the ordinance which says they only need 212 parking spaces.
There are times when there is a problem parking. I can see at
noon time you could have a problem because number one, if they
come to you for carry outs or sit downs, that is x number of
parking plus Boston Chicken does do a good business at lunch
time. The Japanese restaurant, I don't know how much hisiness
13726
they do. I know this is hard for you to give us a handle on
because you are not there and you don't know how well you are
going to go over, but at one of your normal restaurants haw
,` many people would go through there at noon time with carry out
and sit down?
Mr. Phillips: We define lunch starting at 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. I
would say a couple of hundred people.
Mr. Iapine: And that is coming and going. You say the average person if
it is sit down, it is half an hour and if it is carry out, it
is 15 minutes?
Mr. Phillips: Not even that. We move the line through very quickly.
Mr. LaPine: So there is a turnover in cars coming and going.
Mr. Phillips: At one point, as we have reviewed the parking situation there,
we have found out that a number of the employe that are
currently working at the center are parking very close to the
business. Our people would not do that. There are unused
parking spaces off to the north and west and my hope is we
would be able to persuade the other owners to be doing the
same thing because that is for customers' convenience not
employe' convenience.
Mr. Morrow: John, pursuant to the ordinance how many seats would he be
allowed within the permitted use.
Mr. Nagy: Under our group commercial center requirements there are no
absolute number. It is really factored into the overall
off-street parking component for a group commercial center
from the low end user like a furniture company, which would
only require 1/500, to the high end user like restaurant which
would require 1 for every 2 seats. The theory behind the
group commercial requirement of 1/125 is an average between
the high end and the low end so you don't have to recompute
the requirement for parking every time a tenant comes and
goes. It is factored into that off-street parking component
for the center itself.
Mr. Morrow: Would he be permitted any seats without having a waiver?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Morrow: In other words he is asking for the waiver to get 54 seats?
Mr. Nagy: That is right, pursuant to full service. We have a different
number of seats for different classifications but when you get
over 30 it requires a waiver use approval as a full service
restaurant.
Mr. Iapine: Assuming he lowered his seating capacity from 54 to 30, he
could go in then?
13727
Mr. Nagy: He would need a waiver approval but we would approve the
waiver with a limitation not to exceed 30 because it would be
a limited service. When the applicant requests over 30, it
*4111. comes under a different set of standards. You also need a
waiver but it allows a greater number of seats.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add a comment here that Mr. Morrow and I went
to the Laurel Commons Shopping Center today, mid-morning and
at noon, to verify the petitioner's claim that, as we
understood, they didn't believe the parking was a problem
during those hours, and we can verify that at least today that
was the case. There were probably fewer than one third of all
the parking spaces that were being utilized and in the rear of
the building there were 20 cars parked on the two rear sides
of the building and there were probably another 50 spaces back
there available for employee parking, if the employees would
park back there and we would hope they would. We then
proceeded to Thirteen Mile and Orchard Lake for lunch and I
must say they have a very, very attractive business there. We
had a wonderful sandwich. We went through the line a second
time and bought a bag to take home, and it is a business that
is really vibrant and it just seems to me that their claim of
being complimentary to the other uses in that shopping center
merits consideration and I think as a business, it is a
business that would be most welcome in Livonia. I don't think
we have a business like that in our community. While I have
opposed full service restaurants in that area on previous
occasions, in my mind this is not really a full service
restaurant. This is a unique type of business and is very
different than some of those that we have considered here in
the past, and I just hope they come to Livonia. I think it is
a real fine business with a fine product.
Pat Blomberg: I want to say that I also went and observed the parking lot
and sat there for 45 minutes and watched it not fill up and
then had lunch in Farmington Hills with my son and
daughter-in-law and it is a really nice place and I thoroughly
enjoyed my lunch. I really would love to see this
establishment in my neighborhood and in Livonia.
Mr. LaPine: Unfortunately I am a working stiff. I didn't get to try that
restaurant but I want to make an effort to go there, and I am
ready to make a motion Mr. Chairman.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-183-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on November 1, 1994 on Petition 94-9-2-29
13728
by Quality Dining, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant to be located in an existing
shopping center located on the north side of Six Mile Road
'to . between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-2-29 be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the maximum number of customer seats shall be limited to
54.
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 Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That due to the nature of this business where most of the
business will be in the morning hours and at lunch time, and
due to the fact that this business will close at 7:00 p.m. ,
the Planning Commission feels it will not add to any parking
problems that may exist there presently.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-2-30 by Italian American Club Banquet Hall, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for an existing
banquet hall located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
the I-96/I-275 Expressway and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 18.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating when completed it will be in compliance with all C-2
district regulations. They further state the facility is
currently approved for main floor occupancy only. The site is
13729
also in compliance with the parking requirements and although
the submitted site plan shows no provisions for handicapped
parking, the approved set of building plans does show that the
`, 6 required handicapped spaces will be provided. They end by
saying their department has no objections to this proposal.
rastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's
office stating they have no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: We are here to ask the consideration of
the Planning Commission for a waiver use petition so we can
proceed to the Council and then hopefully on to the State of
Michigan to the LCC for approval of a Class C license or
resort license, whatever we qualify for. Since our banquet
hall opened in August we have had a number of people who have
been interested in and have leased the facility, and one of
the things we found out, in many cases they have requested
that they be able to purchase beer, wine and liquor at the
facility. Currently, as you know, the people without license
have to bring in their own beer, wine and liquor. In some
cases we have objections from the potential renters. They have
requested that they be allowed to purchase that with the meal
price. So we found out that it is a hindrance to the
expansion of our business. We are here to ask the
consideration to allow this particular facility for a waiver
use so we can proceed to the Council and to the state.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, inasmuch as people do bring in their hard liquor, this
limits your control of this product, does it not?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, very definitely.
Mr. Piercecchi: It prevents a liability problem perhaps for you down the road?
Mr. Tangora: Right. By applying to the state obviously we have state
control and city control too. The police will check us
periodically and we will be able to check ourselves too, which
we don't have the right to do that now when we have a co-host
that brings in their own intoxicating beverages. They are the
ones that have control and they can dictate who drinks and who
doesn't and when to cut them off. With the liquor license
that will be our responsibility.
Mr. rapine: Mr. Tangora, the license that you are going after, are you
buying a license or are you going to try to get a license that
is left in the City?
Mr. Tangora: If there are still some left, then we will apply for a quota
license.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak
for or against this proposal.
13730
Roy Koponen, 16012 Riverside Drive, 48154: I am the Vice President of Holy
Trinity Lutheran Church Council and we are next-door neighbors
to the Italian American Club Banquet Hall. Our Council, which
'`w is the elected governing body of Holy Trinity, is unanimously
opposed to this petition requesting a waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C liquor license at our next-door neighbors
for the following reasons: First, we are in agreement with
the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that alcoholic
beverages should not be sold within 500 feet of a church or
school. Secondly, the club, in order to build, required
sharing our drive thus making it possible for an impaired
driver to drive through the Holy Trinity parking lot where
children may be walking, running or playing. Thirdly, the
club, when they built the property, came to us and they
verbally stated that they would not seek a liquor license for
their club. With these reasons in mind and the knowledge that
Holy Trinity Church Council opposes this petition, we look to
the City Planning Commission to reject the petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Were you a member of the Council at that time?
Mr. Koponen: No I was not sir but my wife was.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the basis of your position that the commitment had
been made that there would not be a license sought in the
future?
Mr. Koponen: That is why we let them build there.
*t" Mr. Engehretson: Do you have some written documentation on that?
Mr. Koponen: I am sorry to say we only have a verbal agreement.
Mr. Engebretson: Between whom?
Mr. Koponen: I don't know who was there from the Italian American Club.
Mr. Morrow: When Mr. Piercecchi and I were there Sunday morning looking
the site over it appeared that the church was using some of
their facilities for some sort of sunday school or church
event.
Mr. Koponen: We use part of their facility for three classes right now.
Mr. Morrow: So there is some interchange between the church and them.
Mr. Koponen: Oh yes we have a good relationship with them. Our Pastor is
very good friends with the President. By the way I was
appalled when I saw a swastika sign on their side when they
were building. It really bothered. I don't think that is
necessary in our country any more. I think we are open enough
that we can accept anybody.
13731
Mr. McCann: Isn't there a 500 foot separation? Is it just for SDD and SDM
licenses?
`o.. Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: It doPsn't apply to the Class C liquor license?
Mr. Nagy: We understand it is in the state ordinance but not in our
local ordinance.
Mr. McCann: Do you know how the state measures?
Mr. Nagy: I understand they project it out from the center line of the
door to the center line of the street, then go down the center
line of the street and then project that to the door. Our
ordinance goes by the way the craw flies.
Mr. McCann: Is this in violation of the state ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: Not if you project it out to the center line of the street.
Mr. McCann: That is how the state projects it?
Mr. Nagy: That is my understanding.
Mr. Engebretson: What we are dealing with here tonight is really a land use
issue and nothing to do with the granting of a liquor license
because we don't have the power to do that. We are simply
hearing the issue as to whether or not we should provide the
waiver use which would enable them to go forward to seek this
license approval from the state. They have the ultimate
decision authority on this matter.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, when this originally came what was the intent of
the Italian American Club with regard to a liquor license?
Was it your intent to eventually seek one or did you have a
position that you made public either way?
Mr. Tangora: We announced before Council that at that time we were not
intending to seek a Class C license. Our decision was not
made until after we opened and we started having requests from
the various customers. Obviously we have never been in the
banquet hall business before so we did not have the
experience, but now that we have seen some of the pitfalls and
some of the potentials there we feel that we would be well
governed to have a state regulated facility rather than a
non-regulated facility. We think it would do the neighbors
more good to have a controlled license there rather than a
non-controlled facility where people can bring in and have
their own laws and be the ones responsible for the consumption
of alcohol.
Nom.
13732
Mr. McCann: Was this brought before the general vote of the Italian
American Club?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Ginnie Krenz, 34075 Pembroke: I am a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church and
I was on the sitting Council at the time the Italian American
Club approached us. I also worked with this portion of land
when the realtor owned it and tried to sell it so I have been
in on this from the word go. I think it is very necessary to
reaffirm when Mr. Tangora came to our Council, he came saying
this license would never be sought after, and under those
circumstances we agreed he could build on that land. There is
nothing in writing because as Christian neighbors it was
decided by the majority of our Council that his word would be
taken on a handshake. Also, on Sunday morning, just so you
don't think they are being overly neighborly to us, we pay
them $125 a Sunday to use three tables in their room. I also
feel that if he wants control, if people are bringing liquor
in now rather than being able to purchase it there, the
Italian American Club is responsible for what goes on in that
building. They should have someone there as their
representative or their host regardless of what function is
going on in that building. I do believe that according to the
State Liquor Authority if you share a driveway with somebody
like we do and you consider where the driveway is located and
the hazards when you exit onto Five Mile with that 275
overpass with no traffic light there, if you have been back
there and seen them come down that hill going eastbound on
Five Mile Road, it would not be a very safe place to exit if
somebody was intoxicated.
Mr. TaPine: The driveway in question that is used by both the church and
the club, is that owned by the church or do you own half and
they own half?
Ms. Krenz: I believe we own it all. I could be mistaken because in order
for them to be able to enter their property the way the land
goes up, they could not have an enter/exit driveway of their
own. It would not allow for that to be upgraded.
Mr. JaPine: If you own all the driveway, do you have a legal document
giving them the right to use that driveway?
Ms. Krenz: We have, and I don't know how legal it is. It has been
notarized. I have it here and I will be glad to turn it over
to the Planning Commission, the agreements that were made and
signed by Holy Trinity and Charles Tangora representing the
Italian American Club.
Mr. Tangora: We own the driveway jointly. We own half and the church owns
half. The agreement was made when we entered into the
`r.
13733
agreement that we would develop the driveway and, of course
you can see what has happened there. The islands and all the
landscaping and paving was put in at our expense. Any damage
that we did to the church parking lot we have replaced it.
You can almost draw a line down the middle of the boulevard,
and that would be the property line.
Mr. Nagy: That bears out on the site plan.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Tangora, is this your impression of the conversation also
that you were not going to ask for this license?
Mr. Tangora: At that time we were not. As I mentioned experiences have
indicated to us that to run a full service facility and to
serve customers properly, that we need a liquor license.
Things like corporations have come to us, and service clubs,
and they have asked if we have a license so they can purchase
drinks. This is not a bar where it is a hangout. It is a
place like an oversized restaurant where people expect to go
and have a couple of drinks with their dinner. People from
the church are having their weddings there so we do have a
good relationship with them.
Mrs. Blomberg: No matter if there is a liquor license or not, there still is
going to be the need for alcohol being served there?
Mr. Tangora: Yes. We haven't had a party there without it.
Mrs. Blomberg: You do feel this is a problem not being able to control the
liquor because other people are furnishing it? I am assuming
when you do have control, you will assume that responsibility.
Mr. Tangora: We have to or we jeopardize our license if we don't.
Mr. Alanskas: The gentleman earlier said he was worried about children at
the church playing. What hours would these children be
playing?
Ms. Krenz: We have a nursery school at Holy Trinity from 9:30 a.m. until
2:30 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tangora, isn't it true that most events you have are in
the evening so the children wouldn't be playing out in the
church yard?
Ms. Krenz: In the evening no but we can't be guaranteed they won't be
serving anything at lunch time either. They could be having a
function at lunch time and be serving alcohol. Their license
would permit them to do that.
Mr. Alanskas: But the biggest time would be in the evening, correct?
13734
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to revisit this 500 feet. Did you say it is a
state ordinance this 500 feet? Are we not obligated to assume
those state ordinances at this level of government?
Mr. Nagy: We rely on the state obviously in connection with the issuance
of the license itself. We are not regulating the license. As
the Chairman pointed out we are making a land use
determination whether the land and facilities themselves are
appropriate for the use of the property in connection with a
Class C license facility but not the license itself.
Mr. Piercecchi: The state would determine if it was in conflict with the 500
feet or not and will issue or not issue in that case?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: I have heard a lot of arguments here Mr. chairman. The thing
that concerns me, it is being brought in in any case. You are
getting it and as Mr. Tangora pointed out, they have limited
control, and with the licensing they are regulated by the
state, which is really going to put a lot of enforcements on
it that there are not now. I don't know what there is to gain
for you because it is going to be there in either case.
Ms. Krenz: Right now it is there in a much lesser degree we feel and it
is just in the evening. When they get that liquor license
they can be open as a restaurant and serve it at lunch time
.. every day of the week.
No
Mr. Engebretson: Interesting point Mr. Tangora. Things do change as evidenced
by the fact there is no disagreement that there is in fact an
agreement that you came to in the initial dialogue that there
wouldn't be a request for a liquor license, and times have
changed and now you see a need to do that. If you were to
presently feel that this would be primarily to support weekend
and/or evening activities, what would the probability be that
there would be some evolution into the running of a full scale
restaurant with people coming in and out at noon, which would
conflict with the nursery?
Mr. Tangora: There would always be that because we do have a club facility
on the lower level which is not complete. Sometime in the
future that could be utilized for luncheons. It is a
possibility sometime in the future but within the next couple
of years because of our limited funds we will not be able to
complete it. Even so, if we did have a club facility, people
could still bring their drinks down to the club level. It
doesn't change the consumption of alcohol one iota. It just
gives us that much more enforcement power.
13735
Ms. Krenz: As proprietors of the property aren't they responsible
anyway? Aren't they liable for anything that takes place in
that building?
`.w Mr. Engebretson: Not being an attorney I would have to speculate that they
probably are. I think Mr. Tangora is saying they are but I
think he is also suggesting that there might be a higher level
of control at the local and state level over what goes on
there as contrasted to the current situation where people are
bringing it in without the benefit of a license which would
precipitate the state and local control and at the police
level.
Ms. Krenz: We at Holy Trinity do realize that things do change but we
feel that we entered into this agreement in good faith, but
when you are going into a business like that we also feel that
they should have known ahead of time exactly what they would
have in store for them in the future. You don't go in and
open a restaurant type of building and not anticipate this in
the future. It goes hand in hand.
Mr. rapine: At the time that Mr. Tangora came to you and you were talking
to him about allowing them to go in there, he admits that he
said they were not going to ask for a liquor license, did he
mention anything about maybe if they rented out the hall that
people could bring in liquor?
Ms. Krenz: Yes he did sir.
Mr. rapine: Mr. Tangora makes a point that with the liquor license it
gives you more control. That is true as far as the regulation
in the State of Michigan is but the club still has control.
The VFW post that I belong to, we don't have a liquor license
but we rent out the hall and people can bring in their own
alcoholic beverages, but one of the conditions that we rent
the hall out is that all the alcoholic beverages go behind the
bar. We supply the bartender so we dole out the liquor. The
individuals cannot have the bottles on the table. We control
how it is done. The same thing can be done at your facility.
You rent the hall and as part of the conditions if they are
bringing in their own liquor, it has to go behind the bar, you
have your own bartender, you can cut off somebody that has had
too much alcohol, you have control. So there is no argument
there as far as I am concerned. That can be worked out.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you had any problems since they opened with liquor at all
with the children?
Ms. Krenz: No we haven't.
Mr. Engebretson: Let me ask you to recall what was going on at the time the
13736
original proposal was being made. There was very little, if
any, opposition. I think to say there was no opposition from
the church would be an accurate way to characterize the public
hearing that we had relative to the site plan and proposed
Nos, construction of that club house facility and we interpreted
that, with the knowledge that the City would have notified the
church that this was going on and also taken into
consideration the knowledge that we had that there was going
to be some shared access, we interpreted that as a situation
that the facilities were very compatible and I just want to
understand if that was a correct assessment of the situation?
Would you say that was a correct assessment and if so, why
then the change of heart as to whether or not they should have
this liquor license?
Ms. Krenz: I think, as I recall, when this first came into being, not
only Holy Trinity but also the immediate neighbors south of
Five Mile and on the east side of Holy Trinity, were very
against any building taking place on this property, and as we
met with Mr. Tangora I don't think there were any neighbors
but there were representatives from Holy Trinity and they
presented us with their drawings and their plans and
everything appeared to be very up front at the time. What
they were going to do they were going to allow people to come
and have their parties there, bring in their liquor and it
would only be on Friday and Saturday evenings and sometimes on
a Sunday afternoon, which was no conflict whatsoever with
anything that was going on at Holy Trinity that would involve
the safety of children. As was stated we do rent their
facility on Sunday mornings. Pretty soon we will probably be
in for a permit to build because we are getting a little tight
at Holy Trinity, but they have been more than accommodating to
us. We entered into this in good faith that this liquor
license would not be sought. Also the hours that it would
open up to use it would not be compatible with us.
Mr. Engebretson: You did understand back at that time that there was an intent
to have functions there that would involve people bringing
wine and beer into the facility?
Ms. Krenz: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: That didn't trouble you. What would trouble you now, if I
understand correctly, now this would expand into a more
intense use and it covers hours that would go outside what you
would normally associate with those special functions?
Ms. Krenz: Yes. We were under the impression at the time, Mr. Tangora
assured us, that even with the circumstances as they are now
everything would be controlled and he would provide a safe
environment for us all.
``..
13737
Deborah Demeester, 15335 Susanna Circle, Livonia: I live in the neighborhood of
the church and am also a member of the church and the present
church council. I have a formal letter drafted by the members
of the congregation that has basically been covered by what
some of the members here have said so I would just like to
expound on a couple of things and give you the letter so you
have it for your records. One of the things I would like to
say to you, I called the Michigan Liquor Control Commission
who told me the hours of operation for a Class C license are
7:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. , Monday through Saturday and with a
special permit, which they can get if they get the license,
from noon until 2:00 a.m. on Sundays. Our concern here is
that our church does not operate on Sunday morning only. We
have our Tiny Tots and just about every night there is
something going on at the church. Children's activities can
be on the weekends. There are always people coming and going,
and there is a big concern over the fact that there might be
people drinking entering and leaving that parking lot.
Another thing that concerns me since I live in the
neighborhood, and it is mainly a residential neighborhood,
there are some things in the Northville area across 275 and
there is some stuff at Five Mile and Newburgh but basically it
is all homes and I would really hate to see something that
might evolve into a bar or a social club, VFW type of thing if
you will, in the middle of my neighborhood. The children use
that sidewalk along Five Mile all the time. They go up to use
the bike walk that goes along 275. They go to McDonald's. I
am very concerned an establishment like that would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. I would like you to take
into consideration that this is not a commercial area. It is
Nifty
a residential area and having this type of liquor license
concerns me just because of the hours. When we thought it
would be brought in for certain events or banquets, it wasn't
that much of a concern because it was a very limited time.
Now there is a chance of it being an all day type of thing and
that is a big concern.
Clinton Stroebel, 9650 Gold Arbor, Plymouth Twp. : I am a member of Holy
Trinity. I was a member of the Council at the time when the
initial overtures were made, and I was in favor of granting
our blessing on the plan as it was presented and the fact that
it was to be a party facility and people could bring in their
liquor. I had experienced that. My daughter was married and
we had the caterer bring in the food and the alcohol for the
party and it was all very well controlled. I was here at the
hearings at the time and I spoke in favor of the plan as it
was presented then with only the caterers and alcohol service.
We had some overtures at our Council meeting from neighbors
around there who wanted the church to oppose it and we
explained to them the basis on which we were doing it. Now
for us to put a blessing on the liquor license would be a
betrayal of why we were doing it and the basis on which we
13738
were granting our approval. I just wanted to go on record
with that.
Diane Phelps, 14958 Pere: I am in Tiffany Park south of Holy Trinity Church. I
am here to offer my verbal support for the members of this
establishment. I have been in this neighborhood for 22 years.
This is a fine, fine church. It has offered all kinds of
wonderful programs for youth. I am a teacher. I have known
many, many fine young people that came out of this church. I
am very disillusioned and I am sure they are about this verbal
agreement that has now turned differently. I am concerned
also about possible accidents, vandalism and repercussion of
the serving of this liquor. I did not know until this evening
that this would be more hours than just a few. I have
attended many wedding receptions, banquets, socials, showers.
I have seen all kinds of liquor go down the throats of people
who are far below the drinking age. I am concerned about my
neighborhood and about the people nearby and I appreciate very
much this chance to offer my opinion.
Doris Srock, 39139 Elsie: I am also a member of Holy Trinity. Our Tiny Tots
program has been in effect for many years and it has served
many children of this Livonia area. I am concerned also that
with the Class C liquor license that liquor will be available
from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. and I believe the intentions
originally as stated by the other members of the church were
that it would only be brought in for mainly banquets and
weddings, which are usually on Saturday nights, maybe a Sunday
afternoon, but not from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. I don't
Nifty. know if Mr. Tangora intends on having an open bar type area
where the members can come and go all the time. The VFW hall
has more control whereas this is more open and more available
at all times. I am opposed to it also. I would like to go on
record as being opposed.
Mr. Alanskas: I go to various functions in the City and I think the one
thing the church has going for you now is the fact that people
do not drink the way they used to. When you go to a wedding
or a function, I would say the average person if they have two
drinks now, it is plenty. They have two drinks and then they
are gone. Years ago we had a very large drinking problem but
with the laws on drunken driving cracking down, it really
helps a lot. I don't think by them having this license you
would have a problem any more than you do now. I think we are
going in the right direction with the laws, and people just
don't drink like they used to.
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems to me that this whole dialogue seems to be centered
around hours. Obviously that is a very big objection, seven
o'clock in the morning until the following morning. Is it
possible that hours could be agreed up and make it enforceable
and limit it to satisfy both parties? Is that possible?
13739
Mr. Engebretson: Let me try to answer that and then I will ask Mr. Nagy to
check me out. It is my understanding that issues like this
are in effect zoning issues, and zoning resolutions and zoning
changes cannot be conditioned in any way, shape or form. It
would be my expectation that there would not be any kind of
restriction as to hours of use. Now I am going to turn to Mr.
Nagy and I will either be confirmed or rejected.
Mr. Nagy: You are correct in the sense if this was actually a rezoning
change. We cannot enter into contract zoning or put in
certain contracts in consideration for a zoning change but
here the zoning is not being changed. We are being asked to
make an exception to the C-2 and grant a waiver use approval
to allow the additional utilization of the property for Class
C liquor license purposes. To restrict the hours is generally
looked upon as a restraint of trade, and to that extent I
don't think the Planning Commission can provide those kinds of
restrictions. That is my opinion based upon similar
questions that have been asked in the past. If the
applicant wants to condition himself in connection with the
license he is being awarded, that is up to him.
Mr. Engebretson: Would that be done at this level in seeking this waiver use or
would that be done when they go to the state?
Mr. Nagy: When they go to the state.
Mr. LaPine: I think there are a number of issues here that bother me.
Number one, the argument that they need the liquor license for
Niftythe control. I don't think it is really necessary. As I
mentioned before, you can control it by the lease when you
rent it. When people bring in their own liquor you can have
your own bartenders and control it that way. Secondly,
another question that bothers me is the fact that they had a
verbal agreement. Mr. Tangora agrees that they said they
would not go after a liquor license. Unfortunately for the
church they do not have this as a legal document so if you
went to court, you probably would be thrown out because there
is no legal document. Putting all that aside, even if the
church wasn't there, I would have a problem. I wouldn't have
a problem with them having a liquor license if the church
wasn't there but I would have a problem with a private club
asking for one of the few licenses we have left in the City.
I think the few licenses we have left should be used where the
general public gets to use that facility. You can use the
argument this is a banquet hall and the general public can
rent the hall but when I am talking about the general public,
I am talking about high-priced restaurants coming to town,
motels, hotels, things of that nature. The third problem I
have is I don't remember everything that was transacted at the
original meeting, what was said, so if a motion is in order, I
would move for a tabling motion to give us an opportunity to
13740
talk more about this and to look at the minutes to see what
was said at the meetings and maybe we can come to some
conclusion in that time.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#11-184-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on November 1, 1994 on Petition 94-9-2-30
by Italian American Club Banquet Hall, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a Class C license for an existing banquet hall
located on the north side of Five Mile Road between the I-96/I-275
Expressway and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 18,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 94-9-2-30 until the Regular Meeting of November 22, 1994.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, spine, McCann, Piercecchi,
Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
'tow, Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-2-31 by Edward C.Brown requesting waiver use approval to
remodel and expand a portion of an existing building located on the
northeast corner of Hubbard Avenue and Plymouth Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
recommending that the existing parking within the Plymouth
Road right-of-way be eliminated. Further, if the existing
private sidewalk adjacent to the existing showroom is to be
utilized as a continuation of the public walk system in this
area, it is recommended that parking spaces be eliminated in
the east parking area to allow continuous flow of pedestrian
traffic. The elimination of parking spaces adjacent to the
Hubbard Road right-of-way should also be eliminated. We have
also received letters from the Fire Marshal and Traffic Bureau
stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we
13741
have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
the existing building is currently nonconforming by virtue of
the zero front yard setback. The proposed expansion and
remodel of the existing building will not create any
4411. additional deficiencies to the site. The total number of
vehicles to be displayed or stored, as well as landscaping, is
also subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and approval by the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and tell us your
plans.
Mark Roth, Roth & Associates, 554 Fast Maple, Suite 200, Troy 48083: We are the
architects/engineers on the project. What we intend to do is
remove the existing one-story showroom that is Bill Brawn Ford
and propose to put in a two-story building. The ground floor
would be showroom. The second floor would be office
facilities. We would also construct a small addition behind
the showroom area for some additional showroom space. In our
plan we intend to upgrade the elevation across the front of
the existing two-story building. There are air-conditioning
units, sunscreens, awnings, etc. that are on the present
building. We are going to remove those and upgrade the whole
front elevation. Also in our plan we are proposing to make
the sidewalk, which is along Plymouth Road, continuous across
the front of the building and tie in with the sidewalk that is
in front of the car parking. (He presented the site and
elevation plans)
,` Mr. Morrow: Where do your customers park?
Mr. Roth: Along the front there are 10 parking spaces office Plymouth
Road. We do have some customer parking along the side.
Mr. Morrow: How many parking spaces between the two?
Mr. Roth: Ten across the front and I have three along this side and
three handicap spaces.
Mr. Piercecchi: I personally don't see any problems but I think we have an
opportunity here to again stress the beautification of
Livonia. I would like to recommend for consideration between
the curb cuts that you have plenty of room there to put in a 8
to 9 foot wide greenbelt, which you have in front of the new
showroom. Could you remove that existing landscaping which is
adjacent to the sidewalk? That would permit you to go back
further, and it would give you plenty of room to do something
such as a greenbelt and beautify the front of your building?
You have about 35 to 40 feet, if I paced it off right, between
Plymouth Road to that sidewalk.
Mr. Engebretson: In front of the parking.
13742
Mr. Piercecchi: That would give you more aesthetic beauty. That is one of
the goals the Planning Commission has sought. I think this is
the perfect opportunity to do it.
_ Mr. Morrow: Just to amplify what Mr. Piercecchi said we found the
landscaping in front of the building is pretty well screened
on the weekends because it looks like they move new vehicles
into those parking spots and then when the customer parking
comes in, they pretty much screen the landscaping, so it is
not of much value unless we can get it in front of the cars so
it is visible from Plymouth Road. I concur with Mr.
Piercecchi. I can't see haw you can give up your customer
parking.
Mr. Roth: The only concern I would have is we do have a sidewalk that
works its way across there. I don't know if you would want
the public sidewalk along the edge of the road.
Mr. Morrow: Keep the sidewalk where it is.
Mr. Piercecchi: The sidewalk would stay put. As Mr. Morrow pointed out that
landscaping that you have there is totally useless. You can't
see it when you have cars there so why don't we move it and
put it up front and enhance the appearance of the City of
Livonia.
Mr. Nagy: The sidewalk has to abut the building. It has to stay up
against the building.
°`. Edward Brown, 1008 McDonald Dr. Northville: What needs beautification is a piece
of property in the center of Hubbard that the City owns.
Parking is really a problem in front of the dealership, and if
we did move or expand that greenbelt I don't know what would
happen to that parking. Originally when I put the addition on
the building we had parking in front of the showroom too and
we came into Planning and everyone agreed the place was so
strapped for parking that we agreed to leave the parking in
front of the showroom. In the meantime we changed the whole
plan and we all agreed it would look better with the greenbelt
in front of the showroom. We did that. I think to tamper too
much with the greenbelt we could be getting into trouble.
There were salt bits on it and killed whatever we put on it.
This has been a problem down the street. I can't control the
people that do come in there. One of the things we are trying
to do with the addition is move the ground sign down to the
middle of the property to try to force people into parking
where we do have parking. We have parking all around the
facility. I can't stop them from parking in front, and if we
are going to spend all this money on the showroom area, we
have to have some kind of parking. I think with this
greenbelt we would be getting into trouble.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't think so. I paced that off and I think you have
plenty of room to do it.
13743
Mr. Brown: I don't have any objection to that.
Mr. Engebretson: What Mr. Piercecchi was proposing was if it was possible to
expand that greenbelt to make it somewhat larger without
Su. interfering with the parking access.
Mr. Brown: Okay.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Brown I think you have always had a problem there. That
is all you can do. I have a question for you. Where you want
to put the new showroom? Right now you have people in there,
desks, cars, etc. When you do that where are you going to put
all those people and cars in the meantime?
Mr. Brown: We will set up a temporary showroom in the service area.
Mr. Alanskas: What time frame are you talking it will take you to do that if
you get the approval?
Mr. Roth: Three to four months. We would have to minimize the amount of
time that that showroom is out of commission so they can get
into selling cars again.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Brown made a point. I noticed along a lot of our major
roads we do have a problem with salt trucks coming along and
killing any of the grass along the main road. Do you see this
as a good solution to move the greenbelt out there or is just
going to be put in a spot where it is going to be killed?
Mr. Nagy: Certainly the concept is sound. Put the landscape out where
it will have the most impact and visibility. There certainly
is that risk because you have salt spray. There are salt
tolerant plants that you can use to minimize the effects.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Brown haw long has that landscaping that is in front of
the showroom, how long has that been there?
Mr. Brown: Since the early 1990s.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Morrow and I were there today. We discussed this
particular point relative to the salt, that the landscaping in
front of the showroom is in really good condition. As Mr.
Nagy indicates there are some plant materials that are a lot
more tolerant to that salt spray than others. Maybe your
architect can look to those kinds of solutions there. What is
there is very nice. I am confident that you can not only
beautify your facility for your own benefit but for the
benefit of the City and that you can construct landscaping out
front that will survive.
13744
Mr. Brown: We are in agreement with the landscaping and we will increase
it where we can.
`ft. Mr. TaPine: The building to the east, is any renovation being done to
that?
Mr. Roth: The exterior. We are going to take out and remove the air
conditioning units. There are some sunscreens. There is a
door that is going to get replaced. The aluminum coping at
the top is going to get removed. There is some glass that
will be replaced.
Mr. TaPine: Why is the new building higher than the other building?
Mr. Roth: The reason the new building is higher than the other building
is what we are trying to do here, the clearing between these
two facilities is only ten feet. In most showrooms you would
like to have higher ceilings to display your cars. We are
going for a ten and a half foot ceiling in the new showroom.
You would not be able to match floor elevations with a ceiling
height of ten and a half feet here when you only have eight
feet here.
Mr. TaPine: As I read our notcs it says the new building is going to have
glass that can't be seen through upstairs and in the office
complex, and glass you can see through in the showroom. I am
wondering why aren't we making the old building and the new
building the same glass so it looks like it is not two
'�. buildings being renovated, but it looks like it is brand new.
Mr. Roth: You are going to have tinted glass and glass with slight
color. They are all going to be the same when you get done.
Mr. LaPine: The old building is going to have the same glass as the new
building?
Mr. Roth: We are going to match the glass when we get done.
Mr. TaPine: So when the whole thing is done it is going to look like the
building was all constructed at the same time?
Mr. Roth: You just might have a lighter shade of tint to it.
Mr. TaPine: I am not talking about the new building. I am talking about
the old building. Are you changing the glass in the old
building to match the glass you are going to put in the new
building?
Mr. Roth: We are not changing the glass in the old building.
Mr. TaPine: So it is going to look like it is two separate buildings
because the glass is not going to be the same?
13745
Mr. Roth: No it will not look like two separate buildings.
Mr. TaPine: You are not understanding. Let's start all over again. The
'` new building is being constructed with a new type of window
glass than is now in the old building. Is that correct?
Mr. Roth: That is correct.
Mr. TaPine: So we agree there are two different glasses. The old building
has one glass and the new building is going to have new glass.
My impression is why don't we change the glass so the whole
thing looks like it is one brand new building?
Mr. Brown: One of the intents is for it to look the same but I can't tell
until we take the covering off the window and see what it
looks like. We don't want it to look like two different
buildings. We want it to look like one building. Under the
covering there it is a very pretty aluminum that has been
there since the building has been built and it looks very
nice. We covered it for utility reasons years ago and I think
it looks very nice. If it doesn't look very nice, I will
change the glass.
Mr. McCann: What I was hearing from your architect is basically the top
floor glass is going to match the old building glass. You are
going to have a little lighter glass over the showroom so you
can see the cars through it. Is that correct?
''t•► Mr. Roth: Yes.
Mr. McCann: But on the second floor, it is going to match the old
building?
Mr. Roth: It is our intent to match it. If we come up with something
different, then I will sit down with Mr. Brown and discuss it.
We will put the same color aluminum there so everything will
look the same. We are trying to tie the two buildings
together so they don't look like they were built in 1950 and
1994.
Mr. McCann: That is what I was trying to hear.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-2-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-185-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on November 1, 1994 on Petition 94-9-2-31
by Edward C. Brown requesting waiver use approval to remodel and
expand a portion of an existing building located on the northeast
13746
corner of Hubbard Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-2-31 be
'taw approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 10-28-94, as
revised, prepared by Roth Associates, P.C. which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 10-28-94, as
revised, prepared by Roth Associates, P.C. which is hereby
approved shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a
healthy condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-4 and A-5
dated 9-28-94 prepared by Roth Associates, P.C. which are
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
4) That a greenbelt shall be provided between the curb and the
drive serving parking spaces located in front of the principal
building.
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 Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda was a motion
by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the
question of whether certain property located south of Plymouth Road
between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
33 should be rezoned from RUF to R-1A.
13747
Mr. Engebretson: This is an area behind the Woodland Lanes that is currently
zoned residential. We are looking to set a public hearing to
make it a different class of residential. Our purpose here
*sr tonight is to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-186-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property
located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A to; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 692nd Regular Meeting held on October 18, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#11-187-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 692nd Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on October 18, 1994 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi,
Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-10-8-25 by Robert S. Gazall requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an addition to the Horizon Health
Center located at 19900 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the Horizon Health Center located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. They
are proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot addition to
13748
the existing medical center. It will be L in shape with part
of it extending out the east elevation and the north
elevation. This area will be used for a dialysis facility.
The elevation shows the exterior of the new addition will
match the existing building, which is brick with limestone
accent bands on it. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be
screened. The only problem is a deficiency in parking so they
had to go to the Zoning Board prior to being presented to the
Planning Commission. They were granted a variance for
deficient parking so based on that variance they meet the
parking requirement. Landscaping for this site is 25%, which
is over the required 15%.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium.
Robert Gazall, 400 N. Saginaw Street, Flint: I am here to present the case for
the University of Michigan. We have made several evaluations
for the University of Michigan Hospitals. The Livonia site
has been targeted as their best site to date for the proposed
University of Michigan to be known as the Livonia campus. The
University, at this time, is proposing a leasehold with
Horizon Health Limited Partnership, which is a Jonna company,
Mr. Jonna is with us this evening, and to effect a leasehold
essentially that the University of Michigan will outsource and
house various outpatient services that will be staffed and
operated by the University of Michigan Hospitals to serve
their patients within the Livonia service area.
v01. The existing Livonia campus, to be known as such, encompasses
approximately 46,000 gross square feet of floor building area.
We are proposing an addition of 8,000 gross square feet, which
results in a total of 54,000 square feet for the entire
campus. There is a building there presently on site and we
would be putting an addition on it. The building has been
totally under-utilized since its construction and to that
extent we have had many vacancies there, have a number of
shelled areas and the leased spaces are presently
under-utilized. More recently the University of Michigan took
over the surgery center and that has bounced back to a point
where the University has been impressed with this service
area.
The addition to the dialysis will be our initial project.
These will be ongoing projects. This would be an addition
with renovations to the existing tenant areas. To that extent
we are looking at about almost 11,000 square feet for the
dialysis facility. The dialysis facility would contain 12
open dialysis stations, one isolated station, as well as home
training and support and ancillary facilities.
We have also targeted the entire building where the health
club used to be. That would become what you would call the
13749
clinic renovations. That would be a quadri-type, condo-type
medical service for obstetrics, surgery, ophthalmology and
other out-patient examinations. Again, this will be staffed
Now by the University and it would be on a fast pace and the
control would be back to the University on a special computer
system that ties both University and all their outpatient
services. The existing outpatient surgery unit will remain
and that is, however, under more effective control and
scheduling by the University.
We also have a facial examination unit that would serve
outpatients that have had cosmetic surgery within the surgical
facility and they would go back to the facial examination unit
for the rest of the duration of their treatment.
We have submitted, I think, all the requirements required
under the zoning ordinance and the documents have been
identified here with the proper submittal of documents to
build up the file at the City here. The project will comply
with the existing established architectural character and
integrity. It is a good building. It is well built. It has
some deficiencies and we are prepared to take care of those
deficiencies. We want to sustain the harmony of design. The
exterior finish, as Mr. Miller said, will be predominately
face brick with limestone bands to match the existing exterior
finishes. The windows, entrances, all exterior appointments
will match the existing.
'�. Landscaping will involve maintaining, where we can, some
existing good quality landscaping materials and then possibly
relocating some of the planting materials, and then a heavy
infusion of new planting materials in the proximity of the
addition.
The established traffic lights would remain. However, a new
entrance into the dialysis center would be afforded from the
main entrance essentially to the building itself. That is
essentially for the easy accessibility for these types of
patients. With the dialysis facility we would have a number
of patients that would be in wheelchairs. The existing
parking areas are minimally redeveloped. The only result
would be to provide more handicapped spaces, which we have
allocated and shown on the drawing. We would not be doing too
much to the existing service drives and the parking
circulation in the entire complex.
The project will proceed with the major infusion of
investment. I figure that, at this point in time, in excess
of five million dollars. That will proceed on a phase basis
and will initiate the dialysis addition renovation with
ongoing renovations to follow within that interim with the
thought in mind to possibly complete the entire project within
13750
the next year once we initiate construction procedures. This
will be under the total control and operation of the
University of Michigan Hospitals. We are presently requesting
'for Planning Commission to sanction and approve the site plan and
recommend for the next echelon essentially your favorable and
earnest consideration. Thank you Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: I assume the 50o parking deficiency, which was granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals was based on operating
hours?
Mr. Gazall: That is correct. Our major operating hours are high peaks.
Essentially they are in the morning whereas retail
establishments' peak hours are late afternoon and evenings.
We will have a slight peak shortly after lunch when some of
the out patients will visit the clinic.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to see how the loading dock will be hidden.
Mr. Gazall presented the elevation plans.
Mr. Gazall: I would suggest we will be doing more additions if that space
landwise becomes available. Right now we are locked in.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there a noise factor with those machines running?
Mr. Gazall: No there isn't.
*0441.
Mr. TaPine: Do you have any ambulatory patients coming here?
Mr. Gazall: All our patients are ambulatory. These are not in-patients.
They are all out-patients and they are all ambulatory by
family members or by themselves.
Mr. TaPine: It is my understanding with the dialysis that they have come
up with a new way to have a small machine and you can do it
yourself at home. Is that true?
Mr. Gazall: Along with our dialysis program here we do have a training
program. The machines that have been in the media in the last
couple of years have not been perfectly working out. The
machine you might have seen recently, we have no history on
that at this point in time.
Mr. TaPine: So basically they come in there and they have to go through
the machines.
Mr. Gazall: They have to go through the machines. Each dialysis machine
is about $15,000 and it takes about a year to get them on
line.
13751
Mr. T. Pine: How often does a patient have to go through that?
Mr. Gazall: It depends on the severity of the renal problem that the
_f.. patient has. The patient initially would have to come to the
facility about two to three times a week for four hours. They
have to stay on the machine four hours to cleanse the blood.
To that extent as the patient gets better, they start weaning
him or her off. Then they might be able to put them on home
training. It might take a year or two years but then they go
into home training. They still have to come back to be
checked by the nurses and the physicians. There is one
problem that we are experiencing. As the population is
growing older, we are experiencing more and more renal
patients. Right now, at the present time, if you are a renal
patient, you might have a problem getting into a dialysis
facility. There is a waiting list.
Mr. Engebretson: Are there any dialysis facilities in Livonia at the moment
sir?
Mr. Gazall: There might be some private physicians. Maybe some of the
hospitals might have some within their intensive care unit but
there are a number outside the Livonia area. That is why
Livonia was targeted. You are underserviced.
Mr. Engebretson: I assumed that was the case. What kind of surgical procedures
are presently being performed at that facility?
\r Mr. Gazall: Those are all out-patient surgeries. You would come in
probably six o'clock in the morning. Your surgery would be
scheduled. Actually it is a little hospital. According to
the codes and the licensing aspects this essentially is a
little hospital with only out-patient surgeries. We do not
take at-risk patients. To that extent it would be for small
items. The patient is in there for maybe four to eight hours
maximum. The family takes them home from there. The patient
does not sleep overnight.
Mr. Alanskas: John when he says this is a small hospital, do we get 100%
taxes on this property?
Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding that they pay full tax.
Mr. Gazall: By virtue of this as a leasehold, I think that is correct that
this would be on your tax rolls.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-188-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-10-8-25 by Robert S. Gazell
13752
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the Horizon Health Center located at
'`'ftly 19900 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated Oct. 18, 1994 by
Gazall, Reno & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet 4 dated Oct. 18,
1994 by Gazall, Reno & Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, and that the landscape materials shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 4 dated Oct. 18,
1994 by Gazall, Reno & Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4) That any signage shown on the above plans are not approved at
this time and that all signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission for separate approval.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
\r. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to expand the existing commercial building located
at 31450 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Miller: This is the existing retail store on the northwest corner of
Five Mile and Merriman. Right now the building that is
located there now is the Showermans Party Store. The proposal
is to add a 13,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing store
which would increase the building to a 23,000 sq. ft.
multi-tenant commercial center. You would have one major
tenant located in the north part of the building with about
seven tenants along the remaining shopping center. The new
exterior of the new building and old building will be brick
with dryvet and there will be a special canopy that will run
along the storefronts that face Merriman Road. Parking on the
site meets the requirement. They are required to have 150
parking spaces and they are proposing 150 so they meet the
parking requirements. Landscaping, I have been told by the
petitioner that they meet the landscaping requirement. They
also show on the site plan that there will be a greenbelt
substituted for the required wall. That is along the west
property line adjacent to the residential district in that
13753
area. The existing building now has a deficient setback from
Five Mile Road so by the ordinance it is a non-conforming
building. You cannot add to a non-conforming building so if
%'"' this is approved by the Planning Commission, they will have to
go to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Morrow: The dumpster site, is there any explanation on the site plan
as it relates to the dumpster area?
Mr. Miller: They have a dumpster here and they have it screened with
fences. (He pointed this out on the plan)
Mr. Morrow: It does meet all our requirements as related to screening?
Mr. Miller: Yes it does.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, what did you mean by a special canopy?
Mr. Miller: I meant structural canopy.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the landscaping, during the study meeting we
understood that the landscaping was right on the borderline of
14% and the petitioner was under the impression that they had
calculated the landscaping to be 15%. Did we recalculate
that?
Mr. Miller: I came up with 14% but I have been told by the petitioner, he
has his landscape architect here and they explained that they
\.. had 15%.
Mr. Engebretson: We will let the petitioner come forward and explain his
position.
Scott Bowers, Bowers & Rein Associates, Ann Arbor: We did go back and
recalculate our landscape requirements and we did come up with
15.012%, which we will be able to supply drawings to Mr.
Miller if need be. We also talked at the end of that meeting
about changing possibly this walkway here into landscaping
because it was only a three foot wide walkway as existing.
What we are proposing is an L shaped building. We are trying
to landscape the whole front of the building both on Five Mile
and Merriman. We have done a lot of work on the exterior of
the building using the brick that existed on Showermans. What
we included was a structural awning. It is not a canvas
awning. It is a metal awning. We are considering anywhere
from five to seven different tenants in this facility. The
primary use is brick. We do have dryvet for the parapets and
their screening of the mechanical units. Back to the site
plan, we did at the dumpster, which was mentioned earlier, we
have continued our brick wall around the dumpster and provided
opaque screening gates in front of it. Also, as was
mentioned, we did go for a 25 foot landscaping buffer between
this and the single family residential zoned property.
13754
Mr. Morrow: The existing site where Showermans is, I think it was
indicated that would be removed.
—%law Mr. Bowers: Yes it is indicated that will be removed.
Mr. Morrow: There is no intent to have any kind of Ticketmaster operation
at that location? The reason I asked that questions is we
know we are going down from a full fledged party store to, at
this point, no party store, no beer, no liquor, no wine.
Also, one of the operations at Showermans was a Ticketmaster.
I am just wondering if that will remain or is that going to be
removed?
Bob Goldman: I am one of the owners of VOL Associates. One of the
petitioners. One of the petitioners, Joe Rokisak, is out of
town and couldn't be here this evening. With regards to
Ticketmaster, it is not even an issue. If it would please
this body, I would be happy to agree to not have Ticketmaster
there. It has really not been a major question that we have
dealt with at this point. We have no plans to include it. We
have had no definitive plans not to include it but we will be
happy not to if that is what you want.
Mr. Morrow: I am not trying to restrict your operation at all. I just
know there are times when the Ticketmaster can put a lot of
strain on the parking. I was just wondering if that was going
to stay.
Mr. Goldman: We really haven't gotten to that point. Right now we are not
going to run a retail operation within the center. We have no
one to run the existing Ticketmaster.
Mr. Morrow: I certainly don't want to condition that you would never have
one but right now your intent is not to have one?
Mr. Goldman: Right because we are only going to be property owners and
landlords and not tenants.
Mr. Alanskas: Your plans are to add on right next to the existing building?
It will not be separated?
Mr. Bowers: Right now the buildings are not separated. They will be
attached.
Mr. Alanskas: You are adding on to a non-conforming building, which is not
permitted.
Mr. Bowers: It is also my understanding at the study session when we were
talking about this before, even though I have two buildings on
the same site, I would still have a non-conforming setback on
that building and I would still have to go to ZBA.
13755
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have tenants for the five to seven units you want to
put in there?
�.► Mr. Goldman: The only tenants we have absolutely secure is Borics, a hair
cutting salon, but they will recreate their space to be a
separate upscale store as some of their other ones are. We
are under discussions on three other spaces with five other
tenants, and I don't know at this point exactly where it will
end.
Mr. Alanskas: How about the large user?
Mr. Goldman: The large user initially was Perrys, but since we have
withdrawn the SDD/SDM we are renegotiating with them and I
don't know at this point in time whether they will be or will
not be a tenant. They certainly have an interest in the site.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked was adding another small strip mall bothers
me because right across the street at Merriman/Five there are
four empty buildings in that mall.
Mr. Goldman: I am not sure I can speak with authority but I don't know with
those four vacancies if they are over their 10% to 15%
vacancy. They are not an upscale center. They are
dilapidated. They are not a particularly attractive center so
maybe that is part and parcel of why they have vacancies.
Mr. Alanskas: That is the point. We have all over the City in all the strip
'rw malls there are empty, empty buildings in strip malls, and to
add another strip mall in that area really bothers me. We
just approved one a month ago at Newburgh and Joy Road because
there was nothing in that area.
Mr. Goldman: It is zoned C-2. The tenants I am speaking with are coming
from outside Livonia and will only add to the tax base. I do
not intend or even think I will add to any vacancies that
exist, and I think most retail specialists would suggest that
the large box users are creating the vacancies. I think the
amount of small users is on the decrease because they can't
compete with Home Quarters and the Meijers and the Source
Clubs and the Super Ks. I don't think a small neighborhood
center which allows for haircuts and this type of things is
the villain here, although I understand it is not a
particularly enamored use. It is a commercial zoned site. I
am not being argumentative but I think that is true and there
are many reasons for vacancies but it is still America, but
still I appreciate your thoughts.
Mr. Alanskas: When that Showerman's sign comes down, do you have plans for a
monument sign to go there?
Mr. Goldman: We have an indication for a ground sign on the site plan that
is here. We don't plan on flashing lights.
13756
Mr. Engebretson: Can customers enter these stores from the rear parking lot
directly or do they need to walk around the front of the
building?
\..
Mr. Goldman: There was a location for a door in back of Honey Baked Ham but
the rest of them will be towards the front.
Mr. Engebretson: So the parking at the rear would be primarily for employccs?
Mr. Goldman: Primarily for employe.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to expand the existing commercial
building located at 31450 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 15 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet SP-1A dated
Oct. 18, 1994 by Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. , is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, and that the landscape
materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy permit and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
2) That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as
shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for
the protective wall required by Section18.45 of Zoning
Ordinance #543;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet A-12 dated Oct. 18,
1994 by Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4) That the parking spaces for the entire shopping center shall
be double striped;
5) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to an
expansion of a non-conforming building.
6) That the discrepancy of 1% of landscaping be worked out
between the Planning Department and the developer.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. spine, it was
#11-189-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting
13757
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to expand the existing
commercial building located at 31450 Five Mile Road in the
`' Southeast 1/4 of Section 15 until action has been taken by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Ta Pine, McCann, Piercecchi,
Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 693rd Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on November 1, 1994 was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R. Lee Morrow, Secretary
�.•
ATTEST: N-4L I,.11 "'1 i.
Jack, Engebretson, Chairman
jg