HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING M INUTES 1994-11-22 13758
MINUTES OF THE 694th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 22, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 694th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lcc Morrow
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William TaPine
Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Mr. EngPhretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
\r► tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first 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. Engebretson: This issue was tabled at our public hearing three weeks ago so
from a procedural point of view we need a motion to remove it
from the table.
On a motion duly made Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-190-94 RESOLVED that, 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, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13759
Mr. Engebretson: This issue was tabled to give the Commission the opportunity to
look into some of the background pertaining to the rezoning and
the site plan process that occurred several years ago. Rather
than relying on our memories we wanted to review the minutes so
we would have an accurate recollection of who said what. The
principal issue was surrounding the commitment made to the
neighboring church by the Italian American Club that they would
never seek the liquor license that is now being sought, at least
the zoning in order to facilitate the seeking of that license is
being sought, and the Italian American Club acknowledged that
they had in fact said that. That was the church's understanding,
but we just wanted to have the opportunity to check the record.
We have had that opportunity, and I don't know if there is any
new information from anybody's point of view, but that is what we
are here to deal with tonight. Does anybody have any objection
if we go to the audience to see if there is any new information?
(There were no objections) Mr. Tangora, anything from the
standpoint of the club?
Charles Tangora: I had a chance to review the minutes of the Council meeting and
the Planning Commission mooting. I think they accurately show
what was in our mind at that time four years ago. The other
things contained in the minutes obviously were very preliminary
because we hadn't really developed plans to build the building.
We were talking about a 10,000 square foot building. Today we
have a 26,000 square foot building that was formulated as we got
into our planning stage and visited a lot of other clubs around
the area, into Canada, into Ohio, and talked to other clubs to
determine their operation. You have to understand that we are
**my new in this business. We never operated a banquet hall and club
house of this magnitude before, and we learned as we went along.
I have indicated this was four years ago. Since we opened we
have found out that our experience is that we are losing
potential business, especially corporate business, because they
are not willing to assume the liquor liability. They expect to
be able to purchase it at the banquet hall that they rent, and it
has become a major problem for us. Probably about 50% of the
corporate people that have been interested in leasing the hall
have indicated to us that the liquor is a problem. They don't
want to get involved with the liability and therefore they go to
a hall where they can have that situation.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Tangora. Is there anyone representing the church
that would wish to add anything new from your perspective?
William Dobson, 39146 Allen: I have been a member of Holy Trinity since 1978, and
I was on the board that negotiated the agreement with the Italian
American Club. I would like to say Mr. Tangora did say at that
time that they would not ask for the liquor license. We relied
on that representation. You can realize, from our standpoint, if
they had come and said we are the Italian/American Bar & Grill,
13760
there was no way we would have agreed to share our parking lot or
our driveways. Because their property was landlocked, they
needed our driveway.
There had been other people that had come before us with similar
agreements in the past when the individual tried to sell it.
Because they couldn't get ready access to Five Mile, they came to
us and said can we use your driveways? We will put in our own
parking lots. These were people that were talking about building
dentists' offices or lawyers' offices, and we thought that was
inappropriate because it would generate traffic during the time
when we had our Tiny Tots program from 9:00 a.m. until 2:30 in
the afternoon, and they would be crossing our parking lot at that
time, and here you have 3 to 5 year olds in the parking lot. We
just thought that represented unnecessary risks to our children.
So when the Italian American Club came to us they said we will
have functions at all times but our tinny times are Friday,
Saturday and Sunday afternoon, and that they would not have the
liquor license but people could bring in their own caterer who
could provide that service, adult beverages for whoever wanted
them. We really had no objection to that because there really is
no law stipulating against that, but it didn't conflict with
anything within the church because the only thing it might
conflict with would be a wedding, but our wedding experiences are
that they are from four to six in the afternoon, receptions would
be normally later than that, so we didn't think we had a conflict
there. There would be minimal traffic during the week. When
they were busy, we would not be there. We would only be there on
,`, Sunday morning, Monday through Friday with our Tiny Tots,
Wednesday evening with our mid-week school.
We relied on their representation here again that there wouldn't
be a bar next door so to speak. We have common drives, and we
have a reciprocal agreement in writing. I do have a copy of that
agreement that we did negotiate, and there is nothing in there
about the liquor license. We have a reciprocal agreement that we
can use each other's lots for overflow and we can use their exit
and they can use our entrance, basically. If there are people
drinking there, and basically there is no way to stop them from
having a full-service bar once they have their license they can
serve from seven in the morning until 2:00 a.m. the next morning,
and if somebody comes across that parking lot and we have
children there, it is going to be a tragedy. We feel it is an
unacceptable risk.
They have a lovely facility there. They did put up a nice
building, and I wish them luck and I hope they succeed in that,
but I hope they can do it without a liquor license.
Mr. McCann: H, on the waiver use, can we restrict the times the liquor is
sold there?
13761
Mr. Shane: No, only if the petitioner should agree to something.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, one of the concerns that he brought out, and I am
wondering what kind of a hardship it would bear on the club,
'New being a restaurant owner I know the tremendous liability involved
in the sale of alcohol. I know the problems allowing people to
bring alcohol in, including the club formation where people are
allowed to bring alcohol in and then bring the alcohol out with
them. It is very difficult to control. If you have control, I
think it might help. What I am looking at is the 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. They have a Tiny Tots program.
That bothers me being so close, shared driveway, shared parking.
Would you be able to limit the sale of alcohol beyond 5:00 p.m.
during the weekdays?
Mr. Tangora: The only thing I can say, we really don't know what the
development of the lower level is going to be. The upper level
is complete, obviously, with the renting of the banquet hall to
outsiders for weddings, and things of that nature, corporation
meetings, and the downstairs or lower level is a club level. It
has a kitchen down there. There is no equipment in there right
now but it is intended that some day that could be utilized for
the cooking of lunches or dinners, and things of that nature.
When that will be, whether that will be one year, two years or
three years, or whatever, I think at that time if we have lunches
there, obviously like any other restaurant they would like to
have a glass of wine or a cocktail. I think we anticipate that.
Let me just say, our club is a family club. We have children and
we have children that come there, and we are concerned about
sl.w their safety the same way the church is. The way it is right now
there is uncontrolled alcoholic beverages that could be consumed,
but we as a club, and I think it is good managers, and I am
talking about our own people and our own children, are not going
to let that happen. I think you have to have confidence that we
are not going to. We don't intend that the lower level, which is
what you are primarily concerned with, is going to be a typical
bar. We envision it as someplace where club members can meet,
have lunch, possibly have dinner, do their card playing, etc. We
intend to close the facility at a reasonable hour, whether it be
ten o'clock at night or whatever. We have yet to set up those
rules and regulations, but we do intend to be good neighbors. We
do intend to be responsible club members and I think we proved
that when we were over in the other facility over by the Rosedale
Garden Presbyterian Church, who had absolutely no problem even
though alcohol was consumed on the premises there. The only
thing I can tell you, we are responsible people. I think we have
a track record for that. I think most of you people know most of
the members of our club and I just want to say to you we are
going to pledge that we are going to take care of our members and
probably take care of them more than any regulations you would
put on us. Getting back to your question Mr. McCann, those were
some of the things that we envision, that we would have
13762
lunches, and we could serve wine at a lunch or a glass of pop
whatever.
Mr. McCann: Are you going to be open to the general public during the week?
Now
Mr. Tangora: No, we are not going to be open to the general public, however, a
club member could bring in guests. If I wanted to invite
somebody off the Commission, I could bring them in as a guest to
the restaurant, but it is not open to the general public.
Mr. Tapine: Mr. Tangora, if I am hearing you right here tonight, we are
talking the possibility that we are going to have a restaurant at
that location?
Mr. Tangora: What I am telling you is we would be serving food because we have
put in a facility that we could put kitchen equipment in the
lower level.
Mr. TaPine: That doesn't answer my question. Are you going to be operating a
restaurant? I guess the problem is when you came in to us
originally, you talked about a club; and a club, a restaurant,
and a hall, in my opinion, are three different things. I was
under the impression you were operating a private club here for
the Italian American Club, which I voted against it, and the
whole board voted against it except for one member. Now I am
hearing we are going from a club to the possibility of a
restaurant. Tast week when you were here you were talking about
a banquet hall where you were going to be renting it out. As a
matter of fact, you are renting it out now and you can't control
- the liquor because the people can bring it in. You don't have a
liquor license so you don't have any control. To me we are
expanding the use that we originally granted you.
Mr. Tangora: I disagree with you. Number one, it is not a restaurant. My
understanding of a restaurant is something that would cater to
the general public. We do not. It is for our own usage. Club
members can bring in guests. We don't know what the menu is
going to be. It is not going to be a full size menu in my
envision, but some time in the future will tell that. The lower
level is intended for club members for their own use for
possibility of food and alcoholic drinks, if we get the license.
If we don't get the license, they can still bring in their own
alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Tapine: What is the upper level used for?
Mr. Tangora: The upper level is used exclusively for banquets, corporation
meetings, things of that nature. It is used for outside groups.
We rent it out.
Mr. Tapine: So if a corporation came in and wanted to rent the second floor,
they wouldn't have any access to the lower level?
``.
13763
Mr. Tangora: Absolutely not. The fact is we have built the facility so the
lower level is completely locked from the upper level.
Mr. rapine: It seems to me that you made certain commitments. I can read you
all these minutes. I went through them and highlighted them. I
don't know how many times you plainly stated over, over, over
again you were not in the liquor business, you did not want a
liquor license. I don't think you need a liquor license as I
stated at the last meeting. You can operate there. You can rent
out your banquet hall. You can have people bring in their own
liquor. You can control that by having your own bartenders. If
people really want to have a bartender, they can have one. You
can have one. There are ways to control it. I don't see any
reason for you to have a liquor license there.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tangora, one question. You said for the past 13 years at the
old club that you did have liquor consumption there?
Mr. Tangora: Oh yes but we didn't have a liquor license. We brought in our
own the same way we are doing it now.
Mr. Alanskas: For 13 years you had no problems?
Mr. Tangora: We had no problems.
Mr. Alanskas: That was for your membership only, but now because you want to
have weddings and things, you think you do need a liquor license?
Mr. Tangora: Not weddings so much, although we do have requests, primarily
`..y corporate people.
Mr. Alanskas: As I understand it for all of 1995, you already have weddings
booked for Fridays and Saturdays for the whole year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Tangora: Not Fridays. Most of the Saturdays.
Mr. Alanskas: On those weddings haw are they booked in regards to liquor?
Mr. Tangora: We have to tell the people right now whenever we book that we
don't have a liquor license and they have to bring in their own.
Mr. Alanskas: That is what is being told to the people?
Mr. Tangora: Absolutely.
Mrs. Blomberg: I received from your club a pamphlet that you send out. Our
daughter is getting married and she sent out for all of these
pamphlets, and in there you do impress that you will handle their
liquor and that you are responsible for limiting liquor at this
time. It appears to me that you already are controlling it.
13764
Mr. Tangora: We have to control it. We put it in our contracts to do that but
in actuality when a person brings in their own liquor, they are
the final say on that. We try to keep control of it as good
managers, but we just recently had a situation where we couldn't,
and Mr. Morrow saw the evidence of what happened. If a person is
a host, just like in his own home, if he wants to dispense
alcoholic beverages to minors, if people are intoxicated, he is
the final word on it. We have attempted to control it. We have
no enforcement whatsoever. The only thing we can do if people
get out of order, disorderly, we can call the police but we can't
call them on a host giving out liquor to someone who shouldn't
have it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on Mrs. Blomberg here. During the
testimony before the City Council public hearing Pat Tavolacci
made a comment. I don't know if he was speaking on behalf of the
Italian American Club, but he made the point "We control the
drinks brought in for weddings and showers. We have people on
the premises who control this" so the indication was given that
you do.
Mr. Tangora: That was four years ago. Mr. Tavolacci has never had any
experience in liquor liability or anything of that nature. He
made the statement. I saw it in there but he was really speaking
without any authority. We do have people at the facility. We
have bartenders that we hire. We have a manager there that is in
the ballroom at all times trying to look out for problems. Don't
get me wrong. Most of the people who bring in their own alcohol
are very responsible people and they have a very good party. I
stew think even some of the people from the church here have had, at
least there was one occasion, a wedding reception there, and
there are some other bookings from the church people, and I am
sure, like the one that was just recently held, bring in their
own alcoholic beverages. They are good people and they control
it and we don't have any problems with them.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we get too far away from the time issue that was raised by
Mr. McCann, even though Mr. Tangora didn't give any indication
that he would give consideration to restricting their hours of
operation, I would like to know is there anyone here that is in a
position of authority with the church that could speak to that
issue as to whether or not that would make a difference if they
were to voluntarily restrict their hours of operation as it
pertained to alcohol to say 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. and forward?
Deborah Demeester: I sit on the church council. This type of thing would have to
go before the council.
Mr. TaPine: You were not a member of the council when this item first came
up?
Ms. Demeester: No.
13765
Mr. TaPine: The gentleman that spoke earlier, could I ask you a question? I
get the feeling that, from the church's perspective, if you were
told at the time that they were going to have a liquor license,
that you probably would not have approved their using your
Sow driveway for that facility.
Mr. Dobson: I can assure you that would not have happened at that time, and
there was some debate as to whether we should even allow them to
use our driveway. There was a situation out in Brighton Township
a number of years ago where they came out and said you have to
have five acres of land to build a 3,000 square foot home if you
want to build it with a building permit in this township. That
type of zoning "I've got mine, to heck with you", I find that
rather repugnant, so in terms of trying to limit what they want
to do, we are not necessarily trying to do that. The only thing
is alcohol, cars, driveways, and little children do not mix. It
is not safe.
We have Wednesday evening during the regular school year, not
during the summertime, but during the regular school year when we
do have an evening program, we call it mid-week school. It is
equivalent to a Sunday school, although we do have a Sunday
school also. So there is one night in the week. There are a few
nights in the week when we have confirmation classes on Mondays,
but that is a limited period for about six weeks in the fall.
To go back to some of our experiences with the Italian American
Club, we as a board negotiated this agreement, but everything we
do at the church has to go through the congregation. We can't
Sow arbitrarily say this is what the congregation will accept. So we
negotiated this agreement in good faith, and we had a
congregation meeting in December. It was a regular mccting.
There was nothing special about it. We asked the Italian
American Club to send a representative there to answer questions
from the congregation about what was going on with their building
and how they were going to conduct business, and we were told
that their architect was going to be there. Well guess what! He
didn't show up. Some of the leadership had agreed to this
agreement so we stood up and defended the Italian American Club.
They had shown us the renderings and they were beautiful, and the
building they did build was beautiful. So we were let down
there.
One of the neighbors to the east of us, one of their big concerns
was, and they were a little upset with us that we would even
agree to allow them to use our driveway because that would allow
them to build, was that they were going to lose that tree line
buffer between the expressway and their backyards. We talked to
the Italian American Club about that and they said they had the
same concern and they were going to leave a 20 to 30 foot strip
along the expressway as a natural tree buffer. We came in one
Sunday morning and there wasn't a tree standing on the lot. We
13766
called them and we said what is going on here. An over-exuberant
sub-contractor had just eliminated every tree on the lot. I beg
your pardon, there was one tree that was left on the lot and that
was deemed necessary because it was a good tree and they were
going to transplant it someplace else. Then they said don't
worry the City of Livonia is going to make us re-landscape that,
and they have put some plantings out there. Nothing compared to
what was there originally.
In our written agreement we had a stipulation that they would not
drive heavy equipment across our asphalt driveway and entrance.
This was because when they are going through this construction
process we obviously knew they weren't going to pave their lot at
the beginning. It was going to be the very last step of the
construction project. So we didn't want the heavy equipment
breaking up our driveway so it would disrupt our traffic patterns
of the church. We go out there and there are trucks driving back
and forth across the driveway. We called and complained about
that. Well the next day they had a bulldozer out there and they
did cut a new driveway and they had a sign put up that said
trucks use this entrance. I don't think anybody really
complained that they parked their construction trucks in the
parking lot during the week when there was nobody else there.
We tried to be good neighbors and we would like to be. Now we
get stuck with this. If we had been wise enough, which we
weren't, to have this put in writing that you will not ask for
liquor license, we wouldn't be here tonight. We would have saved
all of us a lot of time, but now we have to come here and argue
Slow perspective
it. It really constitutes a safety problem from the
perspective of the church.
Mr. Engebretson: It is in writing sir even though you don't have a written
agreement, as we were told three weeks ago. They acknowledged
that they made that commitment to you. We have it. It is a
matter of public record. It was stated repeatedly as someone
said earlier that they are not in the liquor business and they
would not be seeking a Class C liquor license. It is in writing.
Mr. Dobson: As I see your problem to allow them to use adult beverages in the
evening when perhaps we are not there and it would not be a
problem, you can't do it. It is illegal, and to rely on their
word, as I have just stated, they have a tendency to bend what
they say.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, just for purposes of clarification, I would like to
refer to some of the testimony to make a point if I may. Mr.
Tangora stated "I might mention another point. We are not asking
for a Class C liquor license. We do not intend to sell liquor at
this facility. We feel that it is a liability situation for the
club. As the club's attorney I recommend against it. We are not
in the liquor business and we are not asking for a Class C liquor
license." I would like to ask why the change in direction toward
liability?
13767
Mr. Tangora: Well we do have liability. There is no way we can avoid
liability. If we have a club and there happens to an accident or
some injury, the club is going to get sued. We have liquor
'vow liability
insurance on that basis. We may not have primary
liability but we certainly have secondary liability.
Mr. Piercecchi: But sir, in your original testimony at a hearing you said "We
feel that it is a liability situation for the club."
Mr. Tangora: It is. It is more of a liability if you are the primary
dispenser of alcohol. That is a primary liability. If we get a
liquor license our liability insurance will go up drastically
because we have that primary liability. We are willing to assume
that increased expense.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to ask you one thing Mr. Tangora regarding some
testimony here. They were asking in regards to would you use the
club house for renting as a hall and you said no, but one thing I
wanted to know is "we have assured the church that we would put
in deed restrictions when we bought the property so it would be
used strictly as a club house". Was that ever done?
Mr. Tangora: No we never put in deed restrictions. One of the concerns at the
time that we were rezoning the property is that we would get the
commercial rezoning and not build it as a clubhouse. We talked
about clubhouse, banquet hall, it is probably synonymous, but the
City Council was concerned that by zoning the property to a
commercial zoning, which they subsequently did, that we would go
back on our word and not build a clubhouse or a banquet hall and
would sell it for commercial use. Obviously, that didn't happen.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#11-191-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 1, 1994 by the City Planning Commission 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 recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-9-2-30 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That there is no demonstrated need to utilize a Class C license
at the subject location.
13768
4) That the use would constitute a traffic hazard pertinent to
church activities.
5) That the petitioner had stated at the October 16, 1990 Planning
Commission meeting and the December 17, 1990 City Council meeting
that they would not request a Class C license.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, I am really torn on this petition. I really
understand where the neighbors and church people are going. I
also understand the other aspects of the Italian American Club.
I was hoping we could find some further avenue, possibly in the
restriction of time so we don't have it intermixed with the
toddlers. That scares me. A restaurant doesn't belong next to a
pre-school. On the other hand, the type of club license they
have now people can come and go. The guy getting off work is
going to bring a 12-pack and go in the basement and play bocci
and then leave. He is going to carry all his beer with him into
the parking lot and start talking to his friend. Now we have
alcohol in the parking lot. That to me is also a major problem.
By having a license to restrict it, there is no beer brought in,
there is no beer carried out. There is complete control of where
the alcohol is sold and used. I didn't understand this was going
to be a type of restaurant for the members during the day. I was
hoping we could find some resolution that would help both sides.
`ow Mr. TaPine: In answer to Mr. McCann, I don't think there is a problem, quite
frankly, with the members bringing in their own liquor and
consuming it on the premises, playing bocci ball, etc. I don't
think that is the problem. I think the problem here is when he
tells me when they rent the hall out they have no control. They
do have control. You control it by your contract that said when
the liquor is brought in, it goes behind the bar and it is
dispensed by someone from their organization and they can control
who they serve it to and who they don't serve it to. I don't
think there is a problem, at least there is no problem with me,
if members bring alcohol in for their own consumption, but when
they say they need it because of the problem they have when they
rent the hall out, that can be eliminated by them utilizing their
own bartenders. When they serve the alcohol and they see
somebody is under age, they just don't serve them. I don't care
who brought the alcohol in, they have control.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add a couple of comments also. I am going
to support the denying petition but it is based primarily on the
principle of a deal being a deal. I think that the accommodation
made between the church and the Italian American Club four years
ago was done in good faith based on an understanding between the
parties, and while I know that things change over a period of
13769
time, I think this is the wrong time to be pursuing this
proposal. I think if there was a time to let some time pass, see
how things work out, see what kind of accommodation could be
Nowrevised between the parties that might work to the mutual benefit
of both parties, it might be that the additional control that
would come about as a result of the Italian American Club having
their own liquor license, etc. may prove to be beneficial;
however, I am very concerned with this Tiny Tots situation with
the day care center potentially coming in conflict with adult
beverages being served at lunch time while that operation is
under way. I really would hope that this whole proposal could be
rethought and to see if there can't be some way that everybody's
needs can be accommodated by the possibility of some self-imposed
restriction on operation times, some assurances given to the
church as to the kinds of controls that will be in place, and
then it conceivably could be that we reach a point where all the
parties are happy and live in harmony in the future.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment because your thoughts run parallel with what my
thoughts are. We don't know what the future will bring, but the
comment I would make I can understand why Mr. Tangora would be a
little bit reticent to make any commitments tonight because what
has gone on in the past. I, like you, would like to see a
resolution brought about where the club could prosper yet meet
the needs of the church, but it sounds like to me tonight this
would all be academic if the church had not agreed to allowing
the use of their driveway and subsequently not being able to have
the Italian Club there. It is a tough vote. We have some of the
most responsible people in the community and I am sure they would
do a good job in administering whether it is a club license or
whether it is a Class C, but as the Chairman so eloquently put
it, a deal is a deal.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann
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 a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance to remove a prohibition of general offices as
permitted uses.
Mr. Engebretson: The proposal here is to set a public hearing to consider this
prohibition of general offices in this zoning district.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. TaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
r..
13770
#11-192-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance removing a prohibition of general and professional offices
as permitted uses; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to the C-2 district of the Zoning Ordinance to make second
hand stores and rummage shops waiver uses.
Mr. Engebretson: Again, we are looking for a motion to set a public hearing to
give consideration to that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-193-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend the C-2 district of the Zoning Ordinance to make second hand
stores and rummage shops waiver uses; and
`r" FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, pursuant to Council
Resolution #718-94, on the question of whether the property located on
the east side of Pershing Avenue, south of Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 (Tax Parcel No. 045-01-0087-000) , Lot 87
and adjacent vacated Haig Street, Garden Farms Subdivision, should be
rezoned from R-1A to Nature Preserves.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-194-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #718-94, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property located between Inkster
Road and Pershing Avenue, south of Seven Mile Road on the Northeast
1/4 of Section 12 from R-lA to NP; and
13771
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
r 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 a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, pursuant to Council
Resolution #731-94, on the possible vacating of South Drive located
east of Jarvis in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-195-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended, and Council
Resolution #731-94, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether to vacate South Drive located
east of Jarvis Avenue and south of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 30.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, 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 the approval of the
minutes of the 693rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
November 1, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-196-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 693rd Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held on November 1, 1994 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 694th Regular Meeting
held on November 22, 1994 was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION
l`\ \. nk_.`\\` _�,fi_� tom.
R. Lee narrow, Secretary
AT EST: 1 Z41A _
_. Jack (Engebretson, Chairman
jg