Loading...
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