Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-12-13 13772 MINUTES OF THE 695th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 13, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 695th 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 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William LaPine 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 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 94-10-1-22 by Ronald M. Parz requesting to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2. 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 rezoning proposal . We have also received a letter from Roy Zahnleuter who states he was unable to attend tonight's meeting but would like to request that his view be made public. His home is located at 29504 Greenland, which is diagonally across Middlebelt from the property proposed to be rezoned. This has been his residence since March of 1988. He presently lives immediately adjacent to another C-1 property and is opposed to having the property under petition changed to C-2 zoning. His largest concern is that C-2 zoning includes waiver uses which allow those types of businesses which, in his opinion, are a detriment to his `slow 13773 immediate neighborhood and to our community. He specifically objects to Class C liquor licensed establishments, automobile repair and gasoline service stations, and used car lots. He *41w believes that these would result in a devaluation of his property value as well as that of all neighbors near the petition. Based upon the high percentage of long term vacancy at the petition location and elsewhere in the immediate area, there has been an obvious over-development of commercial property along this corridor. He does not believe that the city should allow a relaxation of responsible zoning ordinance to remedy the poor judgement and speculation of the people who were responsible for developing this property. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Pat Smith: I am here on behalf of Charles Tangora who is representing the petitioner, Ron Parz of Concord Plaza. I can't add much to what was said other than to say he has about 28,000 square feet leased over there. He has 7,000 to 8,000 square feet that he has been unable to lease. I know all of you have gone over to look at it and you have seen where the vacant spaces are. His problem is he has had the opportunity to lease to three different people but was unable to do so because of the zoning. For that reason he is bringing this petition before you. One of the companies he could have leased to was the GE Service Department. They are in there with the Parts Department but the Service Department could have come in had it been zoned otherwise. There was a laser tag store that wanted to come in °law and could not, and a print shop that wanted to come in. So he has brought this before you to request the change from C-1 to C-2. Mr. McCann: To the staff, are some of these uses like the service addition to the parts, is that a possible waiver use in C-1? Mr. Nagy: No there is a limitation in the C-1 . It is not permitted. In C-2 they can go up to 50% of floor area for service. Mr. McCann: But you can't do it as a waiver use in C-1? The print shop would not be allowed in C-1? Mr. Nagy: Yes it would not be. Mr. McCann: Ms. Smith, the petitioner is requesting the entire center be developed into the C-2 district. Is there a certain portion of it at the north end that he would be willing to change from C-1 to C-2 or does he need the whole mall? Ms. Smith: He would like the whole mall . There are various spots that are open. They are not all at one end of the mall so in order to give him the optimum ability to lease it, he would like to have it all changed. 13774 Mr. McCann: I was assuming that he could put the C-2 that would come in, in spots at the north end and the C-1 in the other area. I am trying not to create as much C-2. I realize there is some ��.. hardship here. Mr. LaPine: Ms. Smith, how long has that 8,000 square feet been vacant? Ms. Smith: I can't answer that for you. Mr. LaPine: Do you think one of his problems in getting C-1 tenants is because of the fact there are two parcels to the south that are C-2 that are full? Apparently he has tenants that are happy. Could it be he has his square footage too high and he can't find people in the C-1 classification? Ms. Smith: I do know he has not been able to find anyone for C-1 and he has been approached by ones that could fit in if he had the C-2 zoning. I can't speak as to whether or not his square footage is too high. Again, as you have observed he has the majority of the property leased. We have unfortunately a lot of vacant area in the City. This is one of them. Obviously he would like to see the shopping center as full as it can be and it could have been had he been able to take these other tenants. Mr. LaPine: Do you know if anybody has approached him with the C-1 zoning that could go in there, or is it strictly people with C-2? Ms. Smith: The recent ones that have approached him have been the C-2. Mr. LaPine: You wouldn't know how long this has been empty? Ms. Smith: I can't respond to you as to how long those various storefronts have been vacant. Mr. Morrow: The print shop, would that be like Speedy Printing or a full fledged printing shop? Ms. Smith: When I had my discussion with him it was my understanding it would be like a Speedy Printing shop. Mr. Morrow: Could you tell us more about this laser tag that you mentioned? Ms. Smith: No I cannot. I asked him about that and I didn't get an answer other than they make laser tags. I didn't fully understand what that meant either. Mr. Morrow: One of the places I am coming from here is obviously when we see C-2 I think the letter mentioned things like gas stations and we mention restaurants and things of that nature and I think they are bona fide C-2 districts. However, with technology moving on, sometimes these uses aren't quite as intense as they once were. My dilemma might be more in the lines of maybe our ordinance needs to be looked at to see what 13775 is appropriate that maybe some of these current day uses such as Speedy Printing or a company that can put a laser tag to something might not be too intense and could fall within vr,,, something that might be a neighborhood type service like Speedy Printing. My dilemma is increasing the C-2 with all things that are appropriate in C-2. Mr. McCann was saying perhaps it might be wise to come in on the basis that if you had a tenant come in on that basis since we can't condition it. It would give us a little more insight on what he was trying to accomplish. Those were just some thoughts I had. Ms. Smith: I understand that concern. The problem would be when he gets a tenant that is interested. Very often when they find out he is going to have to try to take some time to get the proper zoning, they lose their interest. Mr. Morrow: I can certainly understand that. It is not the intent of this Commission to try to make centers less viable but we do have to operate within the framework of the zoning. Ms. Smith: I understand that. Mr. LaPine: The three tenants that you mentioned, are they still out there? Ms. Smith: They are gone as of this moment, with the possible exception of the print shop, which would like to expand. That might be something which would still be viable but the other ones are gone. GE took their service base out of the City. L.. Mr. LaPine: My position is I am not really in favor of expanding the C-2 in that area. I might be willing to bend a little if I knew what was going in there but because of the fact that C-2 has some types of businesses that could go in there that I am not happy with, I would like to know ahead of time what is going in there before I would even consider C-2 zoning. If he came in with a specific tenant that was going to take up the whole 8,000 sq. ft. , I might feel more comfortable, but without actually knowing what is going in there, I have a tendency to be a little leery. Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith, we are glad you are here tonight but we are wondering why Mr. Parz isn't with you. Ms. Smith: Mr. Parz was not available tonight, and as you know Mr. Tangora represents him and Mr. Tangora was out of town so they asked me to stand in. I made sure I talked to them to bring you as many answers as I could. I apologize for the fact that he is not here but he did have a conflict with his schedule. I tried to anticipate your questions. I don't know how well I did. I am sorry he is not here. I understand your comments Mr. LaPine and I talked to Mr. Parz about that and as I said the problem was that he would find a tenant that was interested but when they found the time it would take to come before you, they lost interest. I can fully understand that you would like to know `�- what is coming in. That is why I tried to let you know the type of tenants that wanted to come in but this is a dilemma and I understand your problem. 13776 Mr. Piercecchi : I share Bill LaPine's feeling on having to know exactly what is going in there. If we open this up to C-2, to name a few of ti.., the things allowed, automotive accessory stores, dry cleaning stores, lawn mower sales, service and repair shops, bowling alleys, tobacco products, bakeries. We open up a large scale for that residential area and I think it is definitely in violation of Section 19.06, which is compatibility and things of that nature. Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith I am disappointed that Mr. Parz isn't here because I think it puts all of us at a disadvantage in terms of airing out all the issues. That certainly is no discredit to you but with Mr. Parz's absence we don't have the opportunity to get into the issues that were present when that center was constructed as a C-1 facility a number of years ago versus what has changed in the meantime. We don't have the opportunity to learn how long those vacancies have existed. We don't have an opportunity to learn what he has done from a marketing point of view in terms of looking at lease rates; how competitive he may or may not be with others in the area; what the quality of that facility is; what type of a relationship do they have between the landlord and tenants, etc. The real problem that we have here is that this is not the first time that owners of C-1 zoned shopping centers have several vacancies and they look to resolve that problem by upgrading the intensity to C-2, which carries with it the opportunity for a number of businesses, some of which have been mentioned but there are even others `,Q. that are even more undesirable than the ones mentioned that are permitted uses and/or waiver uses in a C-2 district, which clearly aren't meant for a neighborhood shopping center. This is not a regional shopping center. This is a neighborhood shopping center. Ms. Smith: I understand that there is C-2 immediately south of it but I realize that north of it there is not. All I can do is bring it before you and put his concerns before the Commission. Mr. Engebretson: That is all true, but the other side of that coin is as soon as that center becomes C-2, guess what happens to the one immediately north of it. We have talked about that domino effect and have seen it elsewhere, and I am sure that is part of Mr. Parz's motivation for coming here and asking for this. He was recently successful in doing a similar rezoning on Plymouth Road, which may be considered a regional shopping area. While the Planning Commission, as I recall , was not supportive of that, he did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got some variances that permitted him to allow some of these reasonable upgrades in intensity to be tenants at that facility, but then the City Council , in its wisdom, decided to turn the shopping center into C-2. If I was Mr. Parz, I would probably be doing the same thing here, but our problem is not 13777 to concern ourselves with 8,000 square feet of vacancy at this shopping center. Our concern is for the community as a whole. While we are not interested in being obstructionist with businesses in our community, we have a higher responsibility, in my opinion, to interpret and enforce the ordinances to the well-being and betterment of the entire community, and it is questionable as to whether it is appropriate at this point. If Mr. Parz had been here, not to put you in a terribly disadvantaged position, maybe he could have convinced us on some of these things about what has changed and what the logic is. I am very disappointed that he is not here. I don't know what the outcome of this will be but I certainly would have valued his presence, and again, I want to make sure you understand that I am not looking to take anything away from your representation here but you are at a distinct disadvantage. Ms. Smith: As I said I tried to anticipate the questions as best I could. His reason for this is the vacancies. I can only tell you what he stated to me, and I am sorry that he did have a conflict and was not able to be here. Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and just to wrap up my comment, and then we will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal , I would imagine that if this were successful , a reasonable person would conclude that we, by that action, had given an unfair business economic advantage to this property owner to the disadvantage of his neighbor immediately `guy to the north, across the street, etc. It is my belief that if this rezoning request is successful , then we have an obligation to go back and revisit our ordinance as a whole and perhaps revisit similar issues that have been dealt with in the past, and very few of those changes have been permitted in neighborhoods like this. Again, I think it is important that we recognize that we are not looking at the particular 8,000 square foot hardship that might be at issue here, but we are looking at a much more global picture. With that in mind we will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this rezoning request. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #12-197-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-10-1-22 by Ronald M. Parz requesting to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-1-22 be denied for the following reasons: 13778 1) That the subject area currently contains sufficient C-2 zoned lands to serve the needs of the area. 2) That the proposed zoning district would tend to attract uses which are incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area. 3) That the subject site is located so as to provide commercial services principally to the surrounding neighborhood. 4) That the uses permitted in the existing C-1 zoning district as well as the several waiver uses are sufficient to serve the area. 5) That the rezoning of this land to the C-2 zoning classification will set an undesirable precedent for the area and will encourage other C-1 property to similarly be rezoned. 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. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat germane to what we are talking about here but what I alluded to earlier was I would like you to give some consideration to maybe sometime in the future asking the staff to look at some of the current day uses that are not permitted in the C-1, that maybe today with modern technology may be more appropriate in C-1 rather than having to go to the C-2 classification. Just to review the C-1 and C-2 classifications to see if we could make it a little bit broader 'tow to include some of this request for C-2 and still hold off the more intensive uses. Mr. Engebretson: I think that is a good idea Mr. Morrow, and I don't think we need to think about that. I think that we could ask for that task to begin immediately, and to give consideration on the impact it may have on this facility, as well as others throughout the community. This is certainly not the first time we have been through this process. We like to be helpful . We like to help fill these vacancies. Of course, there is always the option, John, of coming back piecemeal as we have done. There is precedent for zoning a portion of a piece of property. As a matter of fact, I think we have even temporarily zoned something that way. Of course there is always the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26 from P to C-3. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing �"' zoning of the surrounding area. 13779 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal , however, the petitioner should submit plans to Wayne County as �.. soon as possible inasmuch as Merriman Road pavement will be widened approximately five feet at this location with the impending Merriman Road grade separation project. Further, the above agency may prohibit left turns into the site from southbound Merriman Road. We have also received a letter from Julie Al-karawi owner of the Bai-Lynn liquor store stating she is against the proposed petition for the following reasons: 1. The proposed location is located within 500 ft. of an existing SDD establishment. Two SDD licenses within that close proximity will present a negative outlook on the City of Livonia. 2. One SDD establishment on the corner of Merriman & north of Schoolcraft is adequately servicing the neighborhood and there is no need for another SDD establishment. 3. Having a shopping center with a SDD license with easy access to the freeway will make it a prime target for criminals and also places the surrounding businesses in jeopardy. 4. To have a SDD establishment right next to an on ramp of the freeway will create a situation where drinking and driving will be at an excess. Mr. Morrow: That particular piece of correspondence doesn't sound like it is appropriate for what we are here to do tonight, Maybe they know something we don't know. Aren't we here for a zoning matter? Nifty Mr. Nagy: The petition deals with the question whether or not the C-3 zoning should be expanded the distance that is proposed, which is 38 feet. Mr. Morrow: It has nothing to do with an SDD license? Mr. Nagy: The petitioner has already applied for and asked for a transfer of license. It was considered by the City Council some two months ago. Tonight it is strictly a matter of zoning. Mr. McCann: By changing this additional piece here to C-3, this being the only area in the City with C-3, liquor license is not a waiver use. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. McCann: So they would not have to come back for that use then. It would be incidental to the zoning. Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith, you are representing this petitioner? Pat Smith: I am here on behalf of Mr. Tangora, who is representing Mr. Shango. This is pretty much explained to you. Apparently 13780 there are three separate tax parcels there and this last one is zoned P, and this came up actually with a suggestion when the petitioner appeared before the City Council who indicated it �.. would probably be a good idea to have that rezoned so it is all C-3. In Mr. Tangora's file there was a letter from the Inspection Department dated September 26, 1994 in which they refer to it as Gagliardi property, and I am sure you are all aware that this is what we are talking about, where they indicated that the three parcels should be combined prior to any redevelopment of this property and it should all be zoned C-3. I understand that is their opinion. I am just reading that to you. That is what the petitioner is asking you to do, to rezone that end of the property so it is all C-3. Mr. Alanskas: Ms. Smith, with the proposed 38 feet they are proposing a 40'x 180' plaza. Do you know how many units they want to put in there? Ms. Smith: I asked him about that and he indicated that there would probably be five stores in there. Mr. Alanskas: Do you know what they plan putting in those five stores? Ms. Smith: The current ones that are in place are a party store and a Coney Island. The others I don't know anything about. I don't know if they have anything in place now for the others. Mr. Alanskas: They would not have an SDD license? Ms. Smith: No, it is not involved in this rezoning petition. Mr. Piercecchi : When did the SDD and SDM get involved? Mr. Engebretson: It is not but as Mr. McCann pointed out, it is something that would be accessible to them without any waivers in this zoning district as contrasted to a C-2 zoning district, and obviously the person that wrote that letter is aware of some of the long-range plans they have. Ms. Smith: I think that has been before the Council , has it not? It is public record. Mr. Nagy: It has been before the Council . Mr. Morrow: Along that same line, he currently has C-3 so unless he was specifically going to put it in that particular portion of the zoning, he already has the waiver. Mr. McCann: Ms. Smith, my understanding is it is going to be somewhat of a small strip mall with a liquor store at one end. Is that pretty much the intent at this point? 13781 Ms. Smith: That is my understanding. The extra area just gives them the extra depth to make the building more feasible. 'r.• Mr. McCann: Is there any intent to open any kind of Class C establishment, bar or restaurant? Ms. Smith: There is none that I am aware of other than what I just told you, and again Mr. Shango also couldn't be here tonight but I spoke to him prior to coming to the meeting and he told me the two that are currently apparently a good possibility. Mr. McCann: You are putting about 7,220 square feet into this mall . Approximately how much of that are you aware is going to be used for the liquor store? Ms. Smith: I am not aware of what is going to be used. Are you aware Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: No, but your architect may be able to comment on it. Albert Abbo, 18977 W. 10 Mile Road, Southfield: I am the architect designer. Do you have a specific question? Mr. McCann: I was wondering how much of the space is going to be used by the liquor store. Mr. Abbo: The liquor store is going to be 60'x40' . There will be three other retail stores and there is going to be either a small r,,,,.. restaurant or something like that, which will be 60'x40' . Mr. McCann: They are looking for a restaurant about 60'x40'? Mr. Abbo: Yes, a Coney Island. Mr. McCann: You are not looking to bring any Class C liquor license or entertainment permit in there? Mr. Abbo: As far as I know, as of now. There could be some seating below 70. Mr. Alanskas: The liquor store referred to, would that be on the east side of the building or the west side? Mr. Abbo: It is going to be in the corner. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that there is a possibility of a restaurant with 70 seats? Mr. Abbo: It is still being debated. Nothing is for sure. Mr. LaPine: Is this the Coney Island you are referring to? r.- 13782 Mr. Abbo: Yes the Coney Island. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, under the C-3 do they have to have a waiver use? `"'. Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, they could go in there right now without this zoning taking place. They would just have to build a slightly smaller building. Is that true? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. Engebretson: They have C-3 that covers two of the properties, and they are looking to have part of that parking rezoned to the east to allow them to build the size facility they want but having said that, they could, if they wanted to, without going through this process basically do what they are talking about doing on a slightly smaller scale. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. McCann: To the architect, do you know is it the plans for the liquor store to be at the area that is under petition tonight for the change in zoning or is the liquor store going to be towards the corner near Merriman? Mr. Abbo: It is going to be at corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft. Mr. McCann: Would there be any hardship to having the P zoned to C-2 as kind of a buffer zone between the C-3 and the M-1 at the other end? The C-3 right now would give you the liquor store. I am looking at the other end for C-2. Would that be a problem? The part under petition tonight is zoned P. Only part of the building would be in that. The C-2 will give you just about any use you would want in the City. Ms. Smith: Mr. Nagy, could you address that? I don't know if that would be a problem. It just seems it would make sense if it was all C-3. Mr. Nagy: What it impacts on is the east 38 feet of your building. The uses you identified, while they are not permitted by right as they are within the C-3, they are permitted through the waiver use process within the C-2. It is another administrative step you would have to go through but it would not jeopardize your ability to build the project. Ms. Smith: I defer to Mr. Nagy on that. He knows more about zoning than I do. As I look at the map it just seems it would make more sense to make it all C-3. Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Smith I understand your comment but the point in fact is, 13783 as I am sure you are aware, there are some waiver uses permitted in a C-3 zoning district that include adult businesses such as adult bookstores, motion picture theaters, nude body painting, modeling studios, escort service, etc. I am not saying that any waiver use like that would ever get through the City but on the other hand, not being an attorney, I don't know that if it is permitted as a waiver use and the zoning is in place, what kind of grounds we have to deal with those kinds of issues, and I must tell you that I think there is some concern looking down the road that with that zoning in place we may be vulnerable to some issues that we really would prefer to avoid. Ms. Smith: That zoning, if I am understanding correctly, is in place except for a small piece, and I suppose if you wanted to make that one small piece C-2, you could. If you feel that gives you some protection, I suppose there is not a problem doing that. Mr. McCann: Under the C-2 it would give you just about everything you need for what I understand you are asking for at this point, and if you don't need the extra zoning, I don't know what the necessity of bringing it up yet is. It does make a bigger section but if you look across the street we go from a C-2 to a C-3 with a driveway going through. That was my question just whether there was a particular need for it to be C-3. Ms. Smith: There is a need for the extra space. I don't think there is a need for it to be C-3, but again I will refer to the letter '''w from the Inspection Department that recommends you make all three parcels the same zoning, but for this particular project I don't think it is necessary. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this rezoning request. Julie Al-karawi : I wrote the letter. It was my concern, after discussion, where the liquor store would be located. This would concern us. As most of you know, I am the owner of Bai-Lynn party store, and if they had a liquor store in the existing area, that would not even be 400 feet away from another SDD license, which is established there. This would create a lot of problems plus anybody walking along Merriman Road would see three SDD licenses within one mile. This lady said they have a party store at the corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft, so my concern is whether they have an SDD existing or they are going to transfer one or not. Mr. Engebretson: I think they are in the process of transferring one and it is a permitted use by right in that zoning district. Ms. Al-karawi : So on top of the party store there will be three or four stores next to it, including a Coney Island, so that will create a lot 13784 of traffic in that corner, which already has a lot of traffic. This will create a lot of problems for the people of Livonia plus I don't think any resident would like to have a party 44111. store in that corner. Mr. Engebretson: We understand your point but it is also important that you understand that they can launch construction as soon as they draw the proper building permits right now without us doing anything here. The only thing that we are talking about is that cross-hatched area. Really all the things that you are concerned about is really available to them without this taking place. What we are trying to do is minimize the impact. We understand this would clearly have some potential impact on your business and we would understand why you would be concerned about that. Ms. Al-karawi : We are concerned for the community too to have an attractive place especially when it is in front of the freeway. A strip mall would attract a lot of people, which we don't want in our City of Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: I think a strip mall is going to go in there no matter what happens here tonight, and there will be a party store at the corner no matter what happens here tonight, and there will probably be a Coney Island no matter what happens here tonight. The real question is what happens to that area that is zoned parking right now? Can they utilize that for some commercial purpose? That is really what we are dealing with. I am not looking to trivialize your comments. I understand your points exactly, but I think it is very important that you understand that we are not in a position to control those issues that you raise as a point of concern. We are concerned about those issues too. Mr. Piercecchi : Would the denial of the 38 feet stop this project? Ms. Smith: It may. Mr. Engebretson: It does not stop them from exercising their rights to build. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-1-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi , it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of 13785 Section 26 from P to C-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-1-23 be approved for the following reasons: %ow 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of an existing zoning district in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will make the subject property more usable in conjunction with adjacent lands. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi , Morrow, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, Engebretson, LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #12-198-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-10-1-23 by Charles G. Tangora on behalf of Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26 from P to C-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-1-23 be denied for a change to the C-3 zoning classification for the reasons listed below, but recommends approval to the C-2 district for the following reasons: 1) That the change of zoning to the C-2 classification would provide for more control of the development of subject property. 2) That the change to C-2 zoning would provide for less intrusive uses for the subject area. 3) That the C-2 zoning would be more restrictive and better promote the growth and development of the area and thereby provide for uses that would tend to be more compatible to the adjoining and existing uses in the area. Reasons for denying the proposed change to the C-3 classification: 13786 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents an undesirable increase in a less restrictive commercial district in the area. �r.. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is not needed to utilize the property in the manner proposed. 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, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-10-2-32 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating their offices have no objections to this proposal . We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed operation of a full service restaurant at Laurel Park Place will not change or increase the parking requirements that currently exist, nor will it create any additional deficiencies at the site. They further state that the utilization of a Class C Liquor License will require the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement since there are currently several established businesses in the Laurel Park complex that hold Class C licenses that are within 1000 feet of this proposal . Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Would you give us your name for the record. Michael Polsinelli , 26913 Northwestern Highway, Southfield: It has been 8 1/2 years since we presented Laurel Park Place to the City of Livonia. This evening presents a milestone and that is this is the last user to occupy space that has not previously been occupied in the project. After 8 1/2 years of hard work and cooperation from the City we are glad to bring this to you and also state that we are embarking on Phase II , which means that anything which we will present in the future will be re-use. (He presented the site plan) The proposed building is at the northeast corner of the shopping center adjacent to Parisian, which is part of the 13787 Phase II expansion. It represents 5,000 square feet. It is adjacent to the mall entry and runs to the north to a service corridor and is only separated by one last space from the Parisian building. One of the things I would like to mention that is confusing about this particular space, you see these large column marks, which are in the mall area but approximately 40 feet away from the Parisian building. That represents the area that the Parisian second story overhangs the mall . When you look at a mall elevation the Parisian building looks like it is very large but the last 40 feet of the Parisian building is only second floor Parisian. The first level is mall . So the mall level, inclusive of a portion of this tenant's frontage to Newburgh Road, is part of the Parisian two-story facade. Specifically this use is unique and different to most restaurants or Chinese restaurants, which is consistent with what we have done at Laurel Park, tried to bring something different to the City and the project. This particular use will present not only a Chinese buffet, and not typical table service type of restaurant, but a Mongolian barbecue approach, which is the food prepared in a large giant wok in front of people, to which you go, pick up your food, go to a station and apply your toppings, and make your different dinners. We have with the expansion of Laurel Park and the addition of Parisian found that food operations are in need. The existing operations, existing seating of the project, cannot service the '"` food demands. As part of Phase II we have added this particular use. We thought it would be different. We thought it would be unique. It would lend itself to the operation, to the type of project Laurel Park is, as well as draw from other areas besides the immediate City. Currently, there are only two other operations that do the barbecue approach, one in Royal Oak, which is a very small operation, and one in Ann Arbor, which just recently opened. There is one Chinese buffet that exists in Madison Heights at Fourteen Mile and Stephenson and on weekends and busy times this particular location serves 500 to 1000 people, which reflects how popular that type of approach is and how well it is doing. The user for this particular space, the operator is a local operator. His family has been in the business for 11 years. They currently have a restaurant on Ford Road in Canton. All three family members reside in Livonia. They own three houses in Livonia. They are familiar with Livonia, what Livonia is like, what it likes, what it needs, and are very interested in having this business in Laurel Park Place mall and the City of Livonia. 13788 This particular proposal is essentially multi-faceted. It involves the restaurant waiver use. It involves signage, which we like to do simultaneous with the restaurant waiver use. It 'tawinvolves a revision in the mall elevation. While we are talking about it, we might as well talk to the next petition, which is the liquor license, so we can do it all at one time. The restaurant will be approximately 180 seats. It will not have a sit-down bar. It will have a service bar. As I explained to you before there will be waitresses. It is "full" service but the nature of the type of service is such that the only things brought to the tables are the drinks and the appetizers. The main dishes are assembled or picked up by the patrons. As part of the layout there are 98 lineal foot of frontage, to which we want to add a small exterior entry to facilitate after-hours operation. Of the 98 lineal foot of frontage there is approximately 42 square feet of signage proposed. Both of these items, the signage and the exterior entrance, are consistent and substantially smaller than that previously granted to D. Dennison's Restaurant and Max and Irma's Restaurant. (He presented further elevation plans and signage) From the standpoint of the signage, although it is a variance because of the ordinance affecting shopping centers and the number of signs that currently exist in a shopping center, it would meet and be a permissible sign if this particular tenant was free standing or existed in any C-2 district within the City. Mr. Morrow: Mike, as it relates to the sign, I noticed the canopy has some writing on it. Would that be construed as a second sign? Mr. Polsinelli : I am not sure how the City would interpret the Chinese lettering on the face of the canopy. Mr. Nagy: We would call that a decorative element not as actual signage. Mr. Alanskas: Mike, in regards to the signage, is that the exact color the letters will be? Mr. Polsinelli : The red is a darker maroon red. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of the business do you think will be done after the mall is closed? You said something about 500 to 1000. Mr. Polsinelli : The 500 to 1000 was representative of a similar operation that did the buffet. Before we go on, I was remiss in not introducing the Commission to Mike Yu, who is one of the family members, and Jack Fenmore, who represents the family in this venture. 13789 Mr. LaPine: Mike, the area where the restaurant is going to go, there is a shoe store at the far east end and then you have the area that is all drywall now. Will they take that whole area or is there another store going in? Mr. Polsinelli : There is a accessory store that will be located between the J. Murphy Shoe Store and the restaurant. Mr. LaPine: That is the area they have been working on? Mr. Polsinelli : That is what is under construction the accessory store. Mr. LaPine: The last question is about the outside entrance. It seems to me when we allowed the Talbots' entrance, I always thought we were assured there would be no more entrances on the east side of the building. Mr. Polsinelli : When we came before you with Talbots, we put a restriction on ourselves at that point from the northeast entrance to the Jacobson building, and said at the point of which we developed the Phase II expansion, now knowing what was there or who we had at the particular time, we may be back. Mr. LaPine: So you did not make a commitment that there would not be any more entrances on the east side of the building? Mr. Polsinelli : That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: What is your recollection as to what appeared on the original 'tor site plan as far as cuts in the building? I understand you told someone that there was a cut down there and we don't remember that. Mr. Polsinelli : I don't recall telling anybody there was one. The very, very original site plan had a series of stores that faced Newburgh Road. When we came back to you for Talbots, at that point my position was since we had shown those entries, they should have been approved. I was corrected by saying once we built the wall solid, that was what would stand. Any changes would have to come back before this Commission and City Council . Mr. Engebretson: Are you going to balance off the red doors at Talbots that we weren't supposed to see from Newburgh Road? Mr. Polsinelli : These will be red doors. Mr. Engebretson: You promised we would never see those red doors on Talbots from Newburgh Road but they are very visible, but this will balance it. Mr. Polsinelli : Unless there are specific questions with respect to the elevation or the signage or the waiver use, my portion of the presentation is closed. If you have any questions of the operator, I am sure he will be glad to attend to those. 13790 Mr. Engebretson: Would you let him just give us a brief description of what he intends to do there, hours of operation, etc. Mike Yu, 39063 Meeting House, Livonia: This restaurant is a Chinese Mongolian barbecue. It is Chinese buffet. Right now we have two Chinese barbecue restaurants. One is in Royal Oak and one is in Ann Arbor. It is a very good business. Another one just opened at Fourteen Mile and Stephenson. It is a Chinese buffet doing very good business. My idea is to join the two kind of restaurants together. I think that would be a good place for a restaurant. I have 12 years experience. It will be a family run style. I think we can do very well at Laurel Park. Mr. LaPine: How many other locations do you have? Mr. Yu: One. Mr. LaPine: Do you have a liquor license at the other location? Mr. Yu: Yes. Mr. LaPine: How much liquor do you sell? How important is that? Mr. Yu: Almost one million dollars a year but the liquor license is only about 8%. Mr. LaPine: Are you proposing to apply for a new liquor license or purchase one that is in escrow? Mr. Yu: I will apply for a new liquor license. Mr. LaPine: What are your hours? Mr. Yu: 11 :00 a.m. to midnight. Mr. LaPine: Seven days a week? Mr. Yu: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: The mall closes at 9:00 p.m. So your outside business will be from 9:00 p.m. until midnight? Mr. Yu: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Is there that much business from 9:00 p.m. until midnight? Mr. Yu: Yes, especially on the weekend. Mr. LaPine: Being that this is in a shopping center, how much carry-out business would you suppose the carry-out would be? Mr. Yu: I don't think we would have too much carry-out at this restaurant. 13791 Mr. LaPine: When would you think your biggest time of business would be, during lunch hour or dinner hour? Mr. Yu: I think both. *41111' Ms. Blomberg: What is the name of your restaurant that you operate now? Mr. Yu: New Peking in Garden City. Mr. LaPine: Mike, is there any way that instead of having the entrance on the outside that the entry to the mall could be reconstructed so you could shut off the wall and still have an entrance from inside the glass doors to this building? Mr. Polsinelli : Unfortunately, we did make a mistake in building those from the standpoint of having the vestibules smaller in structure. It really would be difficult. Inclusive of the fact there are raised planters on both sides of those entrances, doing that would be major reconstruction. Mr. LaPine: At that location we have now two restaurants with liquor licenses plus we have the hotels. I think there are four at that location. Do you think that is oversaturing that center with liquor licenses? Mr. Polsinelli : I think there are two points I would like to make. The first is that within the City of Livonia I think history has shown that a good restaurant has been overly successful . If you have a good operation, you will do well . Cookers and the new Italian restaurant at Haggerty and Seven Mile, as well as the 41w Plymouth Road restaurants, all reflect that. I think if you look at the sales of Dennisons and Max & Ermas, they will tell you they are doing beyond what they ever expected. I don't think we are oversaturing the market because of the use. It is different. Secondly, we know for a fact we don't have enough seats and we can't serve enough food at that location because of the number of people that are there. We have destination shoppers coupled with the thousands and thousands of people that go through the theaters on the weekends. With respect to the liquor license, I think that is coupled and goes hand in hand with the business that the restaurants do, so my answer is no. Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to the restaurant. I think a Chinese restaurant gives you a nice balance there. As you know, we only have four licenses left in town. I think one of those is already spoken for and if we give you one we are down to two. We are getting to a point where we have to pick and choose. I have a concern of having too many liquor licenses at one location where we still have the north end of the City, the Victor property and up in that area, where a lot of building is going to go on there in the future, and if we have an opportunity to get some nice restaurants there, we are going to be out in left field because we have no licenses left. That is a concern. 13792 Mr. Polsinelli : I think the same view should go towards this operation. It is a worthwhile operation. It adds to the success of what is already there. I would hate to have it rejected. `''w There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #12-199-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-10-2-32 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-10-2-32 except for the signage shown on the exterior building elevation which must first be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals because it does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to no more than 190 customer seats. 2) That the building elevation plan marked Sheet 2 dated 9-26-94 prepared by DiMattia Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 'o► 3) That this approval does not include the proposed signage shown on the exterior building elevation. 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 an 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. Piercecchi : Ordinarily I would be very reluctant to grant a waiver use to a restaurant where there are eight others in the package. However, I feel that this particular fair and unique approach would have minimal effect. It will obviously have some effect on the other restaurants but minimal , and I think it is a good addition to that package. 13793 Mr. Engebretson: I think I can verify that Mr. Polsinelli understates the demand at the shopping center for restaurant services. Even at 2:30 in the afternoon it can be a struggle to find a seat in some of ,` the restaurants at that end of the mall , so the demand is surely there. 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 94-10-2-33 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant located in the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Engebretson: I think we can skip the formalities. Mr. Nagy, is there any separate correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department has a report in connection with this one. They indicate that the site plan for the petition has been reviewed. The proposal will not change or increase the parking requirements that currently exist nor create any additional deficiencies at the site. There are currently several established businesses in the Laurel Park complex that hold Class C licenses that are within 1000 feet of this proposal . The utilization of a Class C license will require the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Polsinelli do you want to add anything here for the record? Mr. Polsinelli : We pretty much described the operation. Mr. Engebretson: Your comments stand based on what was discussed earlier. Mr. Alanskas: I don't think it would be improper to give this petitioner a liquor license because I think to compete with Dennison's and Max & Ermas he has to have a fair shake. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #12-200-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-10-2-33 by Teh-Yuan Yu requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant located in the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-2-33 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation rule by the City Council for the following reasons: 13794 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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. LaPine: I am going to vote against the liquor license. I am basing it on the fact I think the shopping center is well served with liquor licenses. Secondly, the petitioner has stated that out of a million dollar business only 8% of his business is liquor, which is only $80,000. Therefore, it seems to me the business is going to be successful without a liquor license. Because of the fact we have such a few liquor licenses left, I am going to vote against this at this particular location. Mr. McCann: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine on a whole lot of the aspects. As far as the City we have only four available. Tonight we are here to decide whether the planning is appropriate. I guess my feeling is he uses 8%, and that is a lot less than other restaurants use. However, it may still be an essential part to his business. Is it appropriate in this section of the mall to `"' have a liquor license? I don't see any difference between this and the Dennisons or the Max and Ermas. It would be as appropriate to use a liquor license at this establishment as it is theirs, therefore, I am going to vote for it. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi , Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine 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 94-10-2-34 by Bottles & Stuff II requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing store located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 13795 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 Fire Marshal 's office `,,, stating they have no objections to this proposal . Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposal to utilize an SDD license at this location will require City Council to waive the 1000 foot separation required by Section 11 .03(R)(1 ) since Perry Drugs is located within 1000 feet of the proposed site. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? David Field, 2230 Buhl Building, Detroit: I am also an owner of Bottles & Stuff. I have been for 14 years with Mr. Lombardi . Mr. Nagy knows I have been here before on two occasions. I got through the City Council but I can't get through this committee because there is a 1000 foot rule requirement, and as I understand it your hands are pretty much tied. While I have the chance I will give it a little pitch and maybe it will get back to the Council . This location has been in existence for almost 40 years. I think that building was built in the 50s. It has been beer and wine and deli for the past 40 years. We have owned it for about 14 years. It is a well run establishment. It is one of the few left that is run with local ownership. With the situation with beer and wine today it is very difficult for any business that just sells beer and wine to stay in business. If the trend continues, I would say within the next ten years there will not be any small stores. There is probably not going to be a Showermans. There is going to be Arbor Drugs and perhaps Farmer Jacks that sells liquor. There isn't going to be a store that caters to the community. This particular change, if it was granted, really wouldn't change our traffic at all . It wouldn't change the fact that we sell alcohol because we do. We sell beer and wine. What it would do is allow us to serve the community in a fuller fashion than we can now. Currently we have people, particularly at the holidays, who are long-standing customers. They buy their beer. They buy their wine. They buy their deli , and then they have to go somewhere else to buy their liquor. That is an inconvenience to the community as a whole. There was some mention of percentages. We would suspect that we would sell about $120,000 to $150,000 worth of liquor a year. Currently that store does about $600,000 so it would have a substantial impact and it would allow us to continue in business. The Engineering Department said fine. The Fire Marshal said fine. The building inspector stated about the 1000 foot rule. I think that pretty much puts the discussion at an end because as I said by history we have been here twice before. The City 13796 Council has agreed with us but we had a problem with the locally held store across the street in the C-1 on the northeast corner, and that was Fairlane Drugs. They always ti,,, stood up and yelled and screamed and when we got to Lansing we were always turned down. What we are doing here is asking for a transfer of an existing license that has been held in escrow for the last five years, doing none of the citizens of Livonia any good at all . Again, we are purchasing that license and transferring it to that location. Some of you might live in the area. Currently there is on the southwest corner one license at Perry Drugs, and to the north at Six Mile and Newburgh there is another Perry. We would therefore like to have you give us a vote of confidence on this and see if we can proceed to purchase this license and have it transferred in there to serve the community in a little fuller fashion and continue to do so because it is very strenuous out there to stay in business under current economic conditions. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Field, when you were turned down before by the Liquor Control , that was based on the drugstore putting up an objection to being so close to you and not because of any separation as it relates to feet or anything like that? Mr. Field: We are still within the 1000 feet. I think the LCC rules are pretty much like the Livonia ordinance. What happened was Fairlane was a small chain of drugstores and they had representation and everything else. We applied, by the way, to the state prior to the issuance of Perry getting their license at the southwest corner. We could have objected and stood in their way but we had been talking to those people and we understood they would not stand in our way if we sought a transfer of license, but that was not the case five years ago. We took them to Circuit Court and went through the whole deal but nothing turned out and we were disappointed. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Field, I have been in your store various times. If you were successful , where would you put this liquor in your facility? Mr. Field: Next time you are in there take a look where the cigarettes are right along the window behind the cash register. That is all liquor shelves there. Mr. Alanskas: That is not that large. Mr. Field: We can also expand toward the deli area or we can relocate the registers on the south side of the building. There is about 40 feet there. I think we are going to do real well when we have liquor in there. That is going to be a wonderful problem to have. Many of the drugstores carry only the top sellers. We 13797 have also had experience with a liquor store. We had one in Garden City at Warren and Venoy. We had a rather large liquor selection. That is one of the things if you buy liquor, and I �., always think of Showermans when I think of a large liquor selection because it was a specialty with them, whereas Perry Drugs have the top five brands. We have enough square footage in that store to eliminate groceries and add liquor. When I say groceries, I don't mean deli items, but paper plates and that type of things, to put a good size liquor section in there. Mr. Alanskas: To take care of your customers? Mr. Field: Yes. Mrs. Blomberg: I am one of your really good customers but I really like the grocery stuff there, and that is the big reason I go in there. I also see this as being a place where the kids stop after school . It is a really nice little corner store. I like it. Mr. Field: Thank you. If we are nice to the kids, they bring their parents in. It is very difficult, particularly over the past few years where the gas stations have gone into mini-markets, and they sell everything. It is more convenient for them, so it is much more difficult to stay in business. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on Mr. Morrow's question but rather than trying to articulate what the scenario was back in 1988, *041.1. 1989 and 1990, I would like to ask you to describe in your words what took place after you received approval from the City in 1988 and two subsequent one-year extensions giving you a total of three years to go through the process with the state. What happened? Mr. Field: Maybe I don't quite understand. We were approved by the City for the new liquor license in 1988 and we went to the state and they denied us. Then we took them to Circuit Court. You may be looking at the investigation on the license we are trying to get, which has been held in escrow, because I don't recall , maybe the extensions were granted when the court case was going on. Mr. Engebretson: Tell us again what the issue was in court. Mr. Field: The issue was we had Fairlane Drugs across the street. They had representation, and strenuously objected. It was a new issue license for the City and, as you know, new issue licenses are very difficult to get through the City. We got through the City twice. Our position was always the City fathers probably knew what their populace needed to be serviced best by the location of these licenses. However, Fairlane got involved very heavily and apparently once the LCC, any type of 13798 governmental group like that acts, it takes an Act of God to turn it around. I think you have to show they are arbitrary and capricious and that is a very difficult standard. I think we are in a much different situation now because we have an existing license that is in escrow, and has been for four to five years, and we understand that Perry will not say anything because they do not feel we are a threat to them. They are just offering liquor as an added store option for the customer where it will be a very important option to us. I don't know if I can say anything better than that but it was always my position that the community should, particularly Livonia, have a better idea what their citizens need and how to service them. Also, I don't think the LCC really cares about Livonia a lot. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for your comments. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-10-2-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #12-201-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 1994 on Petition 94-10-2-34 by Bottles & Stuff II requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing store located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-10-2-34 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation rule and for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That there are only two existing SDD licensed facilities located within a one-half mile of this location. 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, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi , Engebretson NAYS: Blomberg, Morrow ABSENT: None 13799 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 94-9-3-8 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate a storm sewer easement on Lots 53 and 54, Western Golf Estates Subdivision, located on Santa Anita Avenue between Jamison Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. 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 inasmuch as the above easement has been abandoned and relocated with construction in the Western Golf Estates Subdivision, this office has no objections to vacating this original easement area. It is the obligation of the developer of the subdivision to remove and abandon the original storm sewer system within this easement area. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: The only thing I might add, in the process of subdividing there was an existing 18 inch storm sewer that is shown in the crosshatch. In the process of creating the new storm sewer system I relocated the sewer. The new sewer goes on the common line between Lots 53 and 54. At the same time, upon completion of the new sewer system which was approved by your engineering, we removed the existing pipe, backfilled it properly and it is now a building site. In fact, right now it encumbers the building site, and that is the reason for this request. It is really a housekeeping thing in my opinion. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #12-202-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 1994 on Petition 94-9-3-8 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate a storm sewer easement on Lots 53 and 54, Western Golf Estates Subdivision, located on Santa Anita Avenue between Jamison Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-3-8 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public utility. 2) That a new easement has been established so as to protect an existing storm sewer in the area. 13800 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 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 94-9-3-9 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement and/or alley in the rear of Lots 1 through 10, Horton's Newburgh Subdivision, located west of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. 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 since there are no City maintained utilities within the easement areas in question, their office has no objections to vacating these easements. Mr. Roskelly: This is my second housecleaning chore for the evening. This subdivision was platted in 1917. At that time, what is represented as the easement I refer to existed, and/or alley as noted in the original plat existed and it has been sitting there since the beginning of time. I have gone to your Engineering Department. I have gone to title companies, and nobody seems to ever recite this simply because it is in the ,,,,r, form of restrictions on the 1917 recorded subdivision on the screen. This is the Sanford Dance Studios. You will recall I was before you when that was under construction. If you will notice the building really lies above this so-called unused, abandoned alley/easement, whatever it may be. The existing building to the east, that same alley or easement is under the building, and really the land in fee title is somewhat encumbered. Therefore, I am attempting to get this vacated so at some time some bank financier doesn't get wise and say you are over an easement. Get out. Again, it is a housekeeping chore. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #12-203-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-9-3-9 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement and/or alley in the rear of Lots 1 through 10, Horton's Newburgh Subdivision, located west of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-3-9 be approved for the following reasons: 13801 1) That the subject easements are no longer needed to protect any public utility. N,,, 2) That no public utility companies or City departments have objected to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 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 94-9-3-10 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement for storm water drainage located on Lots 4 through 7 of proposed Fargo Woods Subdivision located east of Merriman Road between Pembroke Avenue and Fargo Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. 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 since the easement areas to be vacated are contained within the proposed Fargo Woods Subdivision, a similar easement for storm sewer purposes should be shown on the face of the proposed plat. Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposed ordinance related to this petition, as well as the execution of the final plat by the City Clerk, should be held in abeyance until it can be demonstrated that new easements are being recorded with the new plat. Subject to the above condition, this office has no objections to vacating two open drain easements. Mr. Roskelly: This housekeeping chore may be a little dirtier than the last. As we referred to the east and west easement, that specifically was an open drain easement to drain the property to the east. Since then a sewer has been placed in there, and we are draining that. The one parallel to Merriman Road, that deed was given years ago by a Mr. Cummings who owned the land perhaps thirty years ago. Since then a new deed has been issued parallel to and over the same land in Merriman, just inside the right of way if you continue that all the way down. It will be shown on the final plat. I have a copy but it has not been submitted to the City, but in dealing with the Engineering Department I am showing a 25 foot private easement for storm sewer, which will come up on the final plat. Again, the chore is which came first the chicken or the egg. You certainly are not going to vacate either of these until I prove that we have a new one so at time of submission of this plat, which shows the easement that will be vacated, and it encumbers one lot, I wanted to get ahead of this game so when the plat is recorded we can then initiate and proceed with the dedication of that easement. 13802 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-3-10 closed. Now On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #12-204-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-9-3-10 by William L. Roskelly requesting to vacate an easement for storm water drainage located on Lots 4 through 7 of proposed Fargo Woods Subdivision located east of Merriman Road between Pembroke Avenue and Fargo Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-3-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easements are no longer needed to protect any public utility. 2) That new easements have been established in the area to protect storm drains as shown on the Final Plat for Fargo Woods Subdivision. 3) That no City departments or public utility companies have objected to the vacating of the subject easement providing that the Final Plat for Fargo Woods Subdivision contains the new easement areas. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given r, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located east of Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. 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 Parks and Recreation Department stating they found no discrepancies or problems associated with the proposal as submitted. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal 's office stating their department has no objection to the development of this subdivision contingent upon an approved water main and fire hydrants. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police Department has no objections and/or concerns with respect to discrepancies and problems which it may create. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objection to the proposed plat. They further state the proposed street name of "Hickory Street" will require revision inasmuch as it will conflict with Hickory Lane in Section 6. (Vasser Avenue is a suggested alternative) . 13803 Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Matt Glover, 15256 Adams Ct. , Livonia: I am President of Hickory Oaks �.. Development Company. This particular sub, before I purchased the land, was going to be a site condo, and it was proposed to Mr. Nagy a few months ago. I changed that to be a platted sub that had 28 lots and I have come down to 26 to put more quality and larger homes on the land. Another thing, I have proposed the subdivision to have a 1400 square foot limitation for the houses with brick fronts on the homes also. I am trying to make a quality subdivision here. I have talked to Father O'Brien, who sold the land, to discuss the proposed street name, and he would like to have it named Cushing Avenue, which was St. Priscilla's founder, which is what I would probably change it to. Generally the houses will be around $150,000 to $180,000. I wouldn't expect them to be more expensive than that. Mr. Piercecchi : Was this property purchased from the church? Mr. Glover: Yes it was. They originally had it planned for a school, and they are not going to build that so they deciced to sell the land. Mr. Piercecchi : Why was R-1 selected rather than R-2 or R-3? Mr. Glover: I didn't select the zoning. It was zoned R-1 +r,,,,. Mr. Piercecchi : The preliminary plat showed an area for a private park. Who is going to maintain the park? Mr. Glover: I don't really have a solution to that right now. It is just a general use park. I don't have any solutions at this time. Mr. Engebretson: As the developer is it your intent to landscape the park? Mr. Glover: We are talking about a small berm that would run across the back and the other area would be seeded. Mr. LaPine: Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, are they all going to face Purlingbrook Avenue? Mr. Glover: Yes they are. Mr. LaPine: One lot confuses me, Lot 8, what would go on it because it narrows out to the back? Would a ranch go on it? Mr. Glover: All of these lots could fit a ranch that was 50 feet wide. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have a combination of ranches and colonials? 13804 Mr. Glover: My first thought is ranches and colonials. I am selling a lot of ranches in Livonia so I assume that ranches will sell real well in there. I do have a colonial plan and there is another '`., builder that will be building in here. Mr. LaPine: Will you give the buyer of the home the option of having all brick? Mr. Glover: Yes, also a brick belt as another option. Not going all the way up to save the customer money. Mr. McCann: You said a brick belt. It won't go all the way around the home? Mr. Glover: It would go around the back of the house as another possibility. Mr. McCann: You started out tonight saying you were going to put in some deed restrictions, one of them being 1400 foot, one that the front would be all brick. Now you are talking about half brick fronts. Mr. Glover: No, Mr. LaPine was asking me if I would give them the option to have more brick on the house, and I said you can have a brick belt on the back of the house rather than vinyl siding. Mr. McCann: You have asked for a variance regarding the open space requirement. Did you try to work that out. Would you lose one lot to meet the open space requirement? Mr. Glover: I didn't know there was a variance on the open space. Mr. Nagy: The subdivision rules and regulations of the City of Livonia require that for every lot you shall set aside 720 square feet. Take that number times the lots that are proposed here equals the 4/10 of an acre that Mr. McCann is alluding to. Since you didn't provide for the park, we assumed that you are asking for a variance of the open space dedication requirement for the reason that 4/10th of an acre park in this area, since it cannot be contiguous to an already existing park, that amount of park land is rather meaningless in terms of the overall benefit to the subdivision. Mr. Glover: The existing park would not be enough? Mr. Nagy: It is a move in the right direction but it is not enough by itself. Mr. Glover: I have already cut this down from 28 lots as a site condo to 26 lots. Mr. McCann: It is not zoned for condos? Mr. Glover: It could have been proposed for site condos. 13805 Mr. Nagy: Subject to petition, it is permitted within the R-1 with Planning Commission and City Council approval . r., Mr. Glover: My partner and I would be asking to get that variance approved. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, isn't that regularly waived? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. When it is so small , unless it can be made part of a larger park so it would be more beneficial , we tend to waive it and look for something better by way of enhanced landscaping, screening, things of that nature, to benefit the subdivision rather than just a small residual piece of property. Mr. Engebretson: It certainly makes sense in this case. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately these little parks like this, once the subdivision is completed the developer moves on and the park becomes a part of the civic association and they are required to take care of it and unfortunately over a period of time, from my experience because we had one, the park went to pot because no one wanted to cut it, no one wanted to take care of it, and no one wanted to pay their dues so you have an eyesore there. Mr. Engebretson: Does he need ZBA approval or can we waive that? Mr. Nagy: You can waive that. The subdivision rules and regulations that the Planning Commission administers puts it within your *oft. discretion. Mr. Engebretson: I would propose that if this plat is seen fit to be approved, that we waive it entirely and allow you to attach what is now planned for park, let it be what it will become by default, the responsibility of that particular property owner. Carol Butcher, 19549 Purlingbrook: I have a couple of questions. When the lady donated the property to the parish for the church use, was it zoned R-1 then? Mr. Nagy: I can only tell you when the zoning was established on the property. I cannot tell you when the lady may have donated the property. It goes way back to township days. It goes back to the mid 60s actually. It is not a recent zoning change. Mr. Engebretson: Perhaps this lady knows when the gift was made. Ms. Butcher: I don't know. My husband has lived in the City since the 40s and served with the Police Department for 30 years, and I have been here for 25 years, so we hear a lot of things and learn a lot from a lot of people so I am not sure where this information came from. I do know when we bought our property there was an easement on it, and it was originally 5/8th of an 13806 acre and we had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to build on 1/2 acre directly across the street. That property is contiguous to three high-rise senior citizen facilities, and L that is a dead end street, and that is a bad corner. There are a lot of accidents, and that is going to add a lot of congestion. How would you find out if there were any restrictions to that gift that it be used for parish use? Mr. Engebretson: I suppose you talk to the people that would have administered it along the way. I don't know that the City would have that information on file. Mr. Nagy: Those are private matters between the parties of interest. It is not a municipal matter. The City would not have joined in that. It is really a matter of having the proper parties of interest review whatever deed restrictions or conditions that may be attached to the land but the City of Livonia would not have been a party to that. Mr. Engebretson: What is happening here madam is that the zoning does exist. What we are dealing with tonight is to see if this proposed plat meets the requirements of the ordinance, and it apparently does; to see if the Fire Department and the Police Department have any concerns about health, safety, welfare issues as it pertains to the impact of this proposal on the neighborhood as a whole, and this particular area in particular. As we have heard none of those particular issues have been raised as points of concern, and it appears that all of the lots do meet i,` the requirements. Ms. Butler: As a former member of the Housing Commission, I wonder why, I know the Housing Commission has long sought that property to build more Silver Village type of apartments, it wasn't available to them? Mr. Engebretson: Again, that is a matter of private commerce. I don't suppose anyone here in this room would have knowledge of that except Mr. Nagy there. Mr. Nagy: I do know the land was offered to our Housing Commission and they passed on it. The church gave the City the first right to purchase the property. Mr. Engebretson: When was that John? Mr. Nagy: In the recent past. The Housing Commission was given the opportunity and decided to pass. Ms. Butler: As a neighbor I am concerned about the congestion and the additional traffic. It is a very dense area in spite of the fact that it is rural urban farm across the street and we live on 5/8ths of an acre. There are hundreds of people that live in McNamara Towers and the other senior development, and this is going to add a lot of congestion to a very small street. I N..- thought that was your job to worry about those things. 13807 Mr. Engebretson: It is to the extent of what I tried to describe to you as far as the impact on these roads. Without meaning to trivialize your concerns, because I certainly don't want to do that, I can assure you that every time a subdivision is proposed, whether it is 7 houses or 70 houses, there is an impact on the traffic in that neighborhood, and people have that concern. There is just nothing we can do about that. We would stop everything if we were to look at that as the deciding factor. The owner of the property has a right to build as long as he meets all of the requirements, and he apparently does. It would be my impression that this is likely to be a successful venture, but this is just the beginning of the process. It goes from here, if it is approved, to the City Council . As you may have heard earlier, they don't hold a public hearing but they do rule on it. They have the final determination as to whether this plat will be approved or not, and then assuming that happens the process goes on where various engineering and other issues are looked into to make sure there is no hidden impact on the community as a whole. If everything is in order, then the final plat goes through for approval . It is a long process. This is just the beginning. Ms. Butler: Based on the same rationale that you will have to make your decision, am I going to be spinning my wheels going to the City Council? Mr. Engebretson: The issue is does the petitioner meet all the requirements of the ordinance? If the petitioner meets those requirements, '*411. then the City has no basis on which to deny the proposal unless there is some impact, such as drainage, that by building these homes will that cause some flooding to occur in the neighborhood? Those kinds of issues are determined by the Engineering Department after this preliminary plat process is completed by the City Council . Basically they make their decision on the same basis that we make ours, that is as I described to you. Whether it would be appropriate for you to take the time to appear before the City Council , I can't advise you on that. You have to make that call yourself, but I think in between the lines here I may be giving you the message that it would be useful to you. Ms. Butler: To generate a rezoning, that is only done by the City? Mr. Engebretson: Landowners, and the City under some very special circumstances, can initiate a zoning change request, but if that zoning change is protested by the landowner, the City Council needs to have a super majority vote, 6 out of 7. It is a very difficult thing to do and it is very difficult to defend in court because it comes down to a taking of property. That is risky business. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to add that the concerns you are expressing here tonight are more of a zoning nature when you worry about the 13808 impact and is that an appropriate size lot for that area, because the zoning is in place as the Chairman indicated. It is more of a technical review to make sure the preliminary plat fits the plat act and fits our ordinances. 4011, Ms. Butler: I appreciate what you are saying. Between us, my husband and I have been in the City 75 years. Since we have built this house with a great deal of effort, McNamara Towers has changed from a senior citizen to one for handicapped people also. Down the street from me they put in a group home, and they said they couldn't put them closer than 1500 feet apart. When I checked, I found out the new house that was two doors from me was really Wayne County assisted living. Now this is coming. I get the feeling you are asking me to leave. Mr. Engebretson: If it makes you feel any better, 100 or more houses were built down the street from me. My house is on a street between those houses and an elementary school . Did we get some more traffic as a result of that? Yes we did. Have we survived it? We have. As Mr. Taylor, the Council President, has stated "Livonia's real traffic problems occurred the day I decided to buy a house here" . Again, without wanting to trivialize these points of concerns, it is amazing how we do adapt, and I hope it works out well in your neighborhood too assuming that all this goes through, and I have a feeling it will . Art Fortocci , 19151 Purlingbrook: All the lots on that street are 1/2 acre lots. How come he can build on a 60 foot lot? 'vr.. Mr. Engebretson: Because the zoning says he can. The area is zoned R-1 and R-1 requires 60'x 120' lot configuration. Mr. Nagy, I would like to ask you to verify for those in the audience, while I don't know that it has been stated explicitly, I think it has been implied, these lots do, in fact, meet the requirements. Mr. Nagy: We, along with the other City departments, and we read the correspondence where it was all evaluated, agree that the plat meets the zoning established on the property, which is R-1, and R-1 is a single family residential zoning classification which requires that the minimum lot would be 60 feet wide at the building line, which is 25 feet back from the right-of-way line, and the depth of the property shall be at least 120 feet, and that the area of the lots shall be no less than 7200 square feet. All those lots that are delineated on that plan meet, in fact in most cases they exceed, those minimum requirements. From a zoning standpoint and platting standpoint the plan does meet the requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations, with the exception of the open space, which has already been commented on. It certainly meets the requirements of the R-1 district regulations. Mr. Fortocci : Personally I don't think it is right. We are stuck over there with those big lots. We have to pay the big taxes. How about the sewer system? Now you are putting 26 homes in there. That 13809 is another thing. What road are they going to use for the construction work if you approve this? Purlingbrook is already busted up. There is a hole in front of my house that the City won't fix because the guy who paved it said the City ran out of `r.y money so he left a hole there. I am sure if any of you go down Purlingbrook to the senior citizen home, you must have splashed through that hole. It wakes me up every night. Mr. Engebretson: John, what are the requirements that the construction folks would have to adhere to relative to any damage that they may cause on Purlingbrook? Mr. Nagy: They will have to post a bond. Mr. Fortocci : How big of a bond? Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department will evaluate the condition of the road and they will establish appropriate bond to insure the restoration of the road if there is any damage done in connection with the construction of this subdivision. It is a common practice in the City. In many cases you will find similar situations where subdivisions are being extended or developed on streets that are already paved, and to protect those streets and restore those areas, Engineering will require a bond, and no bond will be released until inspections are made and the street is restored to its original condition. The other alternative is, since the church is the contiguous property owner, maybe they will take their access across church property during the time of construction. That is another alternative Engineering might look at. The City's Engineering Department is there to protect the public's interest. They will do their best to see that area is adequately protected through the bonding of the City of Livonia. Mr. Fortocci : How about the water? We have barely enough water now. If you put 26 more homes in there, they are all going to have water sprinkling systems in. In the summertime when you turn the sprinklers on, you can only run one little sprinkler. Now you are adding more to that main, which really wasn't developed for all those homes. Mr. Engebretson: These are the issues sir that I was alluding to that are resolved after the preliminary plat process is approved. You may or may not be aware that there was a water tap moratorium on in this area for the past several years, and recently that moratorium was lifted when the City of Livonia agreed with the State of Michigan that during water emergency periods there would be odd/even watering by law, not by voluntary participation, but by law. So it has been determined that the water tap moratorium can be lifted and that the development of these additional residences in that area in the north part of Livonia can resume. It has been at a standstill as far as new water taps are concerned for the past several years. That problem is supposed to go away when this major line is completed sometime in the next few years and we all hope that �'�' it does. 13810 Mr. Fortocci : When you are saying brick front, I know what it is. Brick fronts but not along the sides. That is going to downgrade all of the neighborhood. When you mention you are going to build a `.. $150,000 house with a 1400 square foot home, are you going to have attached garages? Mr. Engebretson: Under normal circumstances, at this point, the petitioners bring site elevations of what they plan to do. I don't know if he has that with him, but if so, I would like to ask him to present them at this time. (The petitioner presented the elevations plans. ) Mr. Engebretson: I will just mention to you sir a personal observation. Even though we haven't pursued the issue of brick here this evening, I think I can anticipate the City Council will pursue that very vigorously. I don't think it is likely he is going to be able to construct homes there with a belt of brick that comes up to the window based on past proposals to do that having failed. The City Council , again, will deal with this issue and we have to leave a little bit of work for them to do. Mr. Fortocci : Is there an ordinance in the City of Livonia whether you can have brick or can you build all wood? Mr. Engebretson: There is no ordinance. Mr. Fortocci : So he says he is going to have brick but that doesn't mean he `, is going to have it. Mr. Engebretson: Well yes it does. Mr. Fortocci : I am thinking of my home and I am thinking of the rest of the people that live in the area. So far, it has been going downhill . I have nothing against senior citizens. I am one myself, but you built one senior citizen home and said HUD built it. Then you built another one, and then another one next to it. We have three halfway homes in the area, and maybe more. The reason for that is it is close to the church. I never see them going to church. You can count how many go to church from the senior citizen homes. Mr. Engebretson: We are really not in a position to debate those issues with you tonight. We need to confine our discussion to what is going on with this proposed preliminary plat. (Petitioner presented further plans. ) Mr. Engebretson: I would encourage you by the time you leave here tonight, or surely by the time you reach Council , that you be prepared to deal with brick half way up the house. I think it is appropriate for you to do that. If it were up to me, I would 13811 demand and require brick half way up and that could wind up here tonight before the night is over. `..► Mr. Piercecchi : I know we are here to approve a plat but I would like to ask a question inasmuch as the area has been approached about brick. Does it cost that much to make it all brick? Mr. Glover: This home would be $150,000. When you talk about bricking the other part of that home, it would cost about $5,000 to $6,000 extra. I would start the homes at $156,000. That is possible. That would be in the correct range for what we could sell over there. I was looking at the current prices of the homes that have sold in the area and they were around $150,000. Mr. Fortocci : I told you I didn't like it. If they were bigger lots, it wouldn't be bad. Less homes, maybe they wouldn't make as much money but I think they would sell the homes there if they were bigger lots. Mr. Engebretson: We understand your point of view sir. It is R-1 zoning and that is what we are stuck with right now. Mr. Fortocci : Just that one little section is R-1 zoning so in other words they can build what they want? I understand he can't build colonials there. Mr. Engebretson: You haven't been listening tonight then if you understand that because it has been stated quite clearly that there would be r,,,, ranches and colonials built in that subdivision. I heard that. I know the minutes will reflect that so I don't know what your concern would be about that. Mr. Fortocci : I have nothing against colonials. I just don't like the amount of homes going in that small area. Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. Unfortunately, that is the number of homes that can fit into an R-1 zoning district. Mr. Fortocci : The City is going to guarantee that the water supply is going to be adequate? Mr. Engebretson: That is not an issue here tonight. Mr. Fortocci : I understand when it first came up they were supposed to put in their own main line going into that water service. Not use that main line that is off of Purlingbrook. Mr. Engebretson: That is an engineering concern. I can't really comment on that. Basically we are dealing with a layout of the lots and what goes on those lots. All the other things are preordained. Mr. Fortocci : And the police say it will be safe? 13812 Mr. Engebretson: Yes. They can get equipment in there. They can get ambulances in there. They can get fire trucks in there. Joe Marinelli : I am speaking on behalf of my parents. They live at 19351 Purlingbrook. They also have concerns about the size of the lots. If you look at some of these lots, they are about 1/4 the size of the ones across the street. There are like two houses on one side of the street, and there will be five on the other side. They are also concerned about the value of their house. All the houses around this sub, the value or size of the lots are somewhat bigger than what is going in there. You say 60 feet across. I don't know if that is normal for Livonia. I haven't seen that size lot in Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: They are all over the City, and really, with respect sir, it is not an issue for the reasons that have been articulated earlier. Mr. Marinelli : With respect to the R-1 zoning, when was it changed? Mr. Nagy: The mid 60s. Mr. Marinelli : Do I have a case or do you think those are pretty good size lots? Mr. Engebretson: It fits the zoning district sir. The R-1 zoning district is for numerous types and it defines a certain size lot. When the zoning occurred these lots didn't exist. They don't exist now. r... That is what we are doing here tonight. The question then is do each of these lots as presented meet the ordinance? The answer is they do. That is what we are here for. As far as your having a case, I am not sure what your proposed case is, but if it is anything to do with the question of whether or not this land should be developed in an R-1 zoning district, I guess I would have to conclude no because the zoning has been in place for your lifetime. Mr. Marinelli : We are just concerned about the area. All around there the lots seem to be bigger, especially on our street and they are putting in a quarter size of the lot. It seems like it would bring down the value of the homes. Mr. Engebretson: Not necessarily. Mr. Fortocci , do you have something new? Mr. Fortocci : Can the church sell that property with the R-1 zoning on it for someone else to build homes on it? Mr. Engebretson: Why shouldn't they? Mr. Fortocci : It was designated for a school wasn't it? Mr. Engebretson: The plan that the church had, as I understand it, was to put a 13813 school there at sometime, and then they changed their mind. They own the property. They have the right to sell the property. I don't know on what basis the City could interfere N► with the sale of private property. Mr. Nagy: The church already sold a portion of that to expand the parking lot at Livonia Mall . There has already been a precedent for it on this property. Mr. Engebretson: I can't imagine how the City would be involved in preventing any landowner from selling their property. Mr. Nagy: That is why the City, from a municipal standpoint, puts a zoning classification on the property to regulate the land. The basis for the R-1 zoning, putting the zoning classification on the property, is to regulate the development so in the event it isn't used for church purposes or used for accessory purposes or any other purposes, there is already in place a zoning district to properly regulate the development of that property. Mr. Fortocci : Is that the only area there that is zoned R-1? Mr. Engebretson: The entire parcel the church is on is zoned R-1 . Mr. Fortocci : Is the McNamara building R-1 too? Mr. Nagy: The McNamara building is in a senior high-rise zoning classification. The R-9 is an elderly housing classification which allows the high-rise buildings. The R-8 similarly allows the residential housing up to a four-story building and the R-9 III allows up to the 12-stories that you see where the Ziegler place is. There are other residential zoning classifications on the east side of Purlingbrook that accommodate a variety of housing uses and housing building heights. Mr. Engebretson: We do understand your feelings but I hope you do understand the issue at hand is not whether or not it should be the R-1 zoning that has been in place for 30 years. The questions is do they meet the ordinance for defining these lots to fit the R-1 zoning district, and it appears that they do. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the preliminary plat approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #12-205-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary 13814 Plat approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located east of Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning o.. Commission does hereby waive the open space dedication requirement set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Hickory Oak Subdivision be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to the subject land area. 3) That no City department has objected to the approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat. 4) That before the Final Plat is submitted to the Planning Commission, there shall be a landscape plan submitted for Planning Commission review and approval . 5) That the front elevation of all homes shall have full brick and that on the other three sides brick shall be extended half way up on those elevations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in - the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. 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 the next item on the agenda is letter dated October 28, 1994 from P.R.S. Contracting, Inc. requesting relief from the existing condition calling for "parking of vehicles inside the auto center only" in connection with Petition 88-4-2-18 by K & S Development requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto service center on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Hugh and Fremont in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Engebretson: It is my understanding that we received a letter asking that we take item 10 off the agenda. Mr. Nagy, we visited there today and I want you to know they have a major parking 13815 problem. Mr. Morrow and Mr. Piercecchi were there over the weekend and found that the parking lot was full , and they weren't open for business. I was there today and if every car on the site was legally parked, they wouldn't have any space to *t.• park any cars, and they were full on the inside. To quote an old friend "It's like putting five pounds of coffee into a three pound can. " I would hope that the note that we received stating they are rescheduling in part because they are unavailable and in part because they are re-evaluating their proposal , I would hope that you would give them the message that they have some major work to do to get favorable consideration to this proposal . My concern is if they have the current condition with no outdoor storage, what would they have if there was some storage permitted? They have a major problem there. I would hope you would pass that information on. Mr. Piercecchi : John, I would like to add to that. My visit on Sunday they even had cars in the right-of-way. Mr. Engebretson: The Inspection Department visited them and issued a violation. Is that how this came about? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: Don't let this sit too long. I don't want to allow a problem to go on any longer than necessary. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Victor Hill Subdivision proposed to be located between Northland and Seven Mile Roads, west of Newburgh Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: John, is everything in order? Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. We have letters from the City Clerk indicating that all financial assurances have been deposited with their office. The City Engineer, in his letter of December 2, recommends approval of the final plat as it complies with the previously approved preliminary plat. Everything is in order for final plat approval . Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave, do you have anything to add? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: These homes will sell for $250,000 and up. I will answer any questions. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #12-206-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Victor Hill Subdivision proposed to be located between Northland and Seven Mile Roads, west of Newburgh Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, for the following reasons: 13816 1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the Preliminary Plat. 2) That the City Clerk has indicated that all necessary financial Nifty obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been paid. 3) That the approval of the Final Plat has been recommended by the City Engineer. 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 694th Regular Meeting held on November 22, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #12-207-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 694th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on November 22, 1994 are hereby approved. 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 94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter the exterior building elevations and by *r,. Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for one ground sign and one wall sign for the building located at 19276 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 . Mr. Miller: This is the site of the former post office on the east side of Middlebelt north of Seven Mile Road. They are proposing to alter the elevations of the building. Most of the changes will take place on the west elevation facing Middlebelt Road. They are proposing to relocate the door which is now on the southern end of the west elevation to the northern end. They will be replacing the existing windows with new windows throughout the building. They are also proposing to add a 5 foot wide dryvit type of material along the top of the building that will go along the west elevation and wrap around the south and north elevations. The existing condition in front of the building is parking. There is no landscaping on the site at the present time. They are required to have 15% landscaping. They are proposing to add landscaping to the site in the right-of-way and on the site in front of the building, which would bring the landscaping to 7%. Parking, they are required to have 10 spaces. They are proposing to have 11 , one of which is handicap. The signage for this proposal , they are asking for one wall sign. They are allowed to have a wall sign at 66 square feet. The sign they are proposing is 62 square feet so 13817 they are within the requirement of the ordinance. They are also proposing a ground sign. They are allowed to have 30 square feet. They are proposing 29 square feet so they are within the requirement. Mr. Engebretson: The landscaping is somewhat deficient but otherwise it is a conforming proposal . Do you have anything John? Mr. Nagy: City correspondence is all favorable. Lee Mamola: I am the architect for the project. I would like to point out to the Planning Commission that with the other types of uses permitted within this district, this particular use, that is of a mattress retail store outlet, is a very low traffic generator. It does not generally allow itself for a lot of parking requirements. I don't think you can ask for anything better than this type of use with this type of existing structure within the constraints of the existing on-site circulation. There is ample loading and unloading areas at the rear of the property. The building and the tenant can be serviced with minimal impact to the public streets. The ground sign that is proposed is back behind the sidewalk in a sufficient manner to not interfere with line vision turning onto or off of the property in either direction. Currently there is a curb that is as wide as that property so I believe this is a significant improvement to the traffic on and off the property, in addition to the greenbelt, shrubbery and other landscaping features that will be in the front of the building. Working with the constraints of the existing structure of the previous post office building, to one of a retail store, the constraints were constraining. We have a sample of the facade material . Mr. Morrow: Did Mattress Discounters buy the property or are they just tenants? Mr. Mamola: I believe they have a long-term lease. Mr. Piercecchi : Sir, are you aware that you would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals because this is a non-conforming use termination? Sections (a) and (b) which states a change of the actual use of a building or parcel of land from a valid nonconforming use to a use expressly permitted in the district in which case such discontinuance of such valid nonconforming use for a period of one year, either as to the whole or any part of a building or parcel of land, shall be considered an abandonment of said use. That is Section 18. 18 (a) and (b) . Mr. Nagy: The building department is looking at that to decide whether or not an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals is necessary. 13818 Mr. Engebretson: Where does that leave us? Mr. Nagy: We still have to deal with the external alterations. We have to deal with whether the building should be altered, and the matter is being proposed pursuant to the City's control ordinance associated with Livonia mall . Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the chain link fence in the back. Is that going to stay there? Mr. Mamola: I understand it will be maintained and will stay there. It is in need of repairs and repairs will be made. Mr. Alanskas: And possibly repainted? Mr. Mamola: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: On that elevation that depicted the red on top, my recollection is that the building is red brick and what we see on the elevation you have indicates it is a lighter color. Is this what the building is going to look like? Mr. Mamola: You are correct that the building is red right now. It is a burgundy type of brick. This is what the building will look like when it gets approved. It is a combination of exterior finish material you see in front of you. There will still be some of the brick you see out there today but that brick will be painted to match this color. ,.. Mr. Engebretson: So your rendering is not intended to represent what the appearance of the building will be after these changes occur? Mr. Mamola: . Yes it is. The red brick will be painted to match the color of the dryvit here. The rear of that building will not be painted. It will be left in the red color. Mr. Engebretson: In your professional opinion, from an architectural point of view, is that going to be aesthetically pleasing? Mr. Mamola: I don't have a problem with the appearance of the design and the aesthetics as it faces the street and the side elevations. On the one side it is substantially hidden by an existing tire operation on the south. Mr. LaPine: The freestanding sign. I went out there today and looked at that location. Number one, this building sits close to Middlebelt Road. Therefore, I don't really see why we need the freestanding sign. I believe at the last meeting a representative from the mattress company mentioned they had one other store and that was at Twelve Mile Road and Northwestern Highway, which I went out and checked that location. That store sits back approximately 100 feet from Northwestern 13819 Highway where you don't have a freestanding sign at all . All you have is a sign on the face of the building. If you can get by with one sign there on the face of the building without a freestanding sign at a 100 foot setback, I believe you can get by here. There are a couple of other things I noticed at the store, and I hope they are not going to be here. At the store up there you had three neon signs in the windows, and other signs in the windows about sales. The one thing that really floored me is the day after we had our last meeting I went out there. The first row of parking along Northwestern Highway there was a car parked there with a mattress on top. I assumed someone had just bought a mattress. A few days later I went back and the car was still there with the same mattress so I assumed that is a sign. I went out there today, just to double check it again, and there was a white pickup truck there with two signs on it plus on top of the mattress there were balloons. I hope we are not going to get that kind of operation here. To me it looked very gaudy. I worry when I see those type things. I think we can get by without a freestanding sign. If you look at that sign compared to the sign at Kids R Us next door, which is a tremendous piece of property, I think this sign is probably as big, if not larger, than the sign at the Kids R Us, and you are so close to the road that the wall sign is going to be sufficient, in my opinion. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step down. Do you own both of these stores sir? .• Charles Spera, 21170 Chubb Road, Northville: No just this one store. Mr. Engebretson: Is this a franchise type of business? What is your relationship to the other store that Mr. LaPine was referring to? Mr. Spera: I have no relationship. The tenant leases space apparently in the other shopping center and has chosen to lease this building. I am just the landlord. I have nothing to do with the operation of the store. Mr. Engebretson: Is the operator of the store here? Mr. Spera: No. Mr. Engebretson': As the owner of the store you are presenting the petition on behalf of your proposed tenant to make these alterations. Is that correct? Mr. Spera: I am making the alterations on behalf of the tenant. Mr. Engebretson: But the tenant is not here tonight to speak to these points of concern? Mr. Spera: No. I did reflect on the comment with regard to the mattresses on top of the car. I haven't seen that but there isn't enough 13820 parking in front of this building the same way as it is at the other building. Mr. Engebretson: I may take exception to that sir. The number one parking space out there could very well have that scenario and I think we are here to make sure that doesn't happen. I am very disappointed that the tenant isn't here because I want to make sure it doesn't happen. I am not exactly sure how to do that without his presence here. Mr. Spera: I concur with your feelings on the matter. I don't disagree with you. I would feel the way that you do. I don't know what to do other than tell you I would convey your opinions and feelings to them. Mr. Engebretson: If we convey an approval , we will convey it with some pretty well instructed restrictions, assuming we can do that. I think we can. We have been through this kind of situation before where we had tractor/trailers parked as signs, 40 foot billboards in parking lots, and we have learned. Thank you for coming down sir. I was under the impression that you were the operator of the store. I am sure you understand the concerns we have. Mr. Piercecchi : Inasmuch as you have those concerns, do you want a motion to table this matter until we get the operator here? Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if we were to give you direction tonight that clearly expressed the concern of what it was we wanted to accomplish in a resolution, concerning the fact that this is in the Livonia N"- Mall Control Zone, concerning the fact that it has to go to the City Council , realizing they will have the same concerns we do, do you think we could wrap up a resolution so tightly that we could prevent that kind of event from ever occurring on this property both with respect to parked vehicles and/or signage in the windows? Mr. Nagy: Yes I am confident we could do that. Also, I have a lot of confidence in our Inspection Department that that would not be the case in our City. As you already pointed out, we don't allow any mobile signs. We don't allow any cars and trucks, etc. in front of buildings with signs on. Our Ordinance Enforcement Division is on top of those kinds of things. I have all the confidence in the Commission's ability to structure those conditions as well as confidence in our Inspection Department to make sure that doesn't happen in our City. Mr. Engebretson: I expected that you would say that but I just wanted to make sure if we were to move on this, that you were comfortable that the proper verbiage could be constructed after the fact, and we would not be acting in an inappropriate way. Mr. Piercecchi : I just thought if you were looking for a motion to table this, I would be happy to make it. 13821 Mr. Engebretson: If we were to look to Mr. Nagy to construct the language that would protect us against cars and/or trucks and/or any other type of vehicle and/or balloons, and/or flags, and other things of that nature. *414.. Mr. Piercecchi : I don't question, Mr. Chairman, that you could put together a resolution but it would also be nice to have his testimony in writing then we would have something to fall back on. Mr. Engebretson: Then I will leave it in the hands of the Commissioners as to how we will handle this. A motion is always in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi , it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter the exterior building elevations and by Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for one ground sign and one wall sign for the building located at 19276 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 . Mr. Engebretson, Chairman declared the motion failed for lack of support. Mr. McCann: I guess I would make a recommendation at this point to approve being that I think the language would be sufficient that we wouldn't be able to get to this until after the first of the year, which might unreasonably stall the lease and the landlord. I believe the ordinance is pretty clear about outdoor advertising, and I think we could reiterate it in our �r. resolution. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #12-208-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-11-8-27 by Charles C. Spera requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter the exterior building elevations and by Media Six, Inc. requesting approval for one ground sign and one wall sign for the building located at 19276 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site & Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet A-1 dated 11/28/94 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and that the landscape materials as shown shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet A-3 dated 11/28/94 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 13822 3) That the Sign Package by Media Six, Inc. , as submitted as part of this site plan application and received by the Planning Commission on 11/22/94 is hereby approved for the wall sign only. 4) That the tenant is restricted from any other type of outdoor advertising whatsoever. 5) That there shall be no more than 25% window signage permitted. 6) That the entire parking lot for this site shall be repaved and restriped. 7) That the entire building shall be painted. 8) That the Planning Commission does hereby approve the 7.8% landscaping provided and waives the balance of the 15% landscape requirement. 9) That the petitioner, as represented by his architect, has agreed to the above conditions. 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 94-10-8-26 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. Engebretson: We tabled this item from a public hearing held the 1st of November. We will need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #12-209-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-10-8-26 by VCL Associates, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 28.58 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 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, I presume the fact that we are dealing with this item here tonight would indicate that the Zoning Board of Appeals has acted on this issue and that the variance needed was granted. Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Miller: That is what I was told. Mr. Engebretson: You may proceed Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller: This is the Showermans site right now. It is located on the northwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman. They are proposing to add a 13,600 square foot addition to the existing building. ti.. 13823 By adding this addition it will allow the building to become a multi-tenant commercial center. The storefront will face towards Merriman Road with an anchor store located on the north `.. area of the store. Parking, they are required to have 150 spaces, which they show on the site plan, so they conform to parking. Landscaping, they are required to have 15%. , which we reconfigured. I know my notes say 14% but I talked to the petitioner and Ordinance Enforcement and we reconfigured it and it is 15%, so the landscaping is conforming to what they are allowed. As was stated, they needed a variance for the front yard setback for the existing building off Five Mile Road. They needed 60 feet. The existing building is 40. The ordinance states you cannot add to a non-conforming building so they got a variance for that. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have anything to add to that? Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and for the record if you would officially repeat your comments as far as the Zoning Board action tonight. Michael Rein: I am from the architectural firm Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. I am representing the petitioner this evening. As was mentioned, we did appear earlier this evening at the gallery on the fifth floor in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals where they granted an approval for the front yard deficiency off Five Mile because of the existing Showermans' facility that is approximately 20 feet short of what is required off the Five Mile Road right-of-way. As part of that, just so the Planning Commission understands fully, we agreed to take down the large Showermans' sign, which is non-conforming. If the Planning Commission were to go ahead with site plan approval , the Zoning Board of Appeals requested that we take that down. Also, in one year from the time the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, we will revisit whether the wall needs to be put in. Right now the variance was continued so we don't have to put the wall in on the north property line but we promised to revisit that in a year, talk to the church to see if there have been any complaints to the Planning and Building Departments and go from there. As Mr. Miller mentioned, we have discussed with him the landscape requirements. We felt we were in conformance prior but just to insure we have taken the sidewalk off at the south end of the building. We don't have any entrances into the building there and we have added greenbelt of approximately 3 1/2 feet where we will put some shrubs in there and break up this side of the building. We do meet all setback requirements for the remainder of the center with the exception of the variance requested. We meet the parking requirements established by the City of Livonia. The owner, and my client, VCL Associates, is in the audience along with my partner Scott Bowers to answer any questions you might have. `.. 13824 Mr. LaPine: John, once they got the variance from the Zoning Board of appeals and meet all the requirements for the landscaping and meet all the requirements for the setback, there is no real reason why we can deny it? Mr. Nagy: There are no technical deficiencies with respect to the standards. Mr. Alanskas: Now they can add on to the building because now it is conforming? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: Is there just going to be one person in that back part? Mr. Rein: There are no leases signed as of yet. Our ideal would be to have an anchor tenant. Mr. Alanskas: And you would have five more tenants? Mr. Rein: We will have up to five. Mr. Morrow: Other than what you have covered tonight, has anything else changed as far as elevations since we last saw this or has it pretty well remained intact? Mr. Rein: We have not changed anything. Mr. Morrow: The only variation is whatever conditions that the ZBA placed on it for granting the variance? Mr. Rein: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Are you still pursuing Perry Drugs? Mr. Rein: There are still ongoing discussions with them but as of today my client has not signed anything. Mr. LaPine: But they are still pursuing that? Mr. Rein: As I understand it. Mr. McCann: The liquor license, you are not planning on keeping the liquor store in the mall so that liquor license will go into escrow. Is that correct? Mr. Rein: As I understand it, yes it would go into escrow. Mr. Engebretson: When would the Showermans' operation cease to exist in its present form? Mr. Rein: If we were to get site plan approval , with the reconfiguration of the Honey Baked Ham, I think the Showermans' operation would cease to exist in very short order. They want out of that business. 13825 Salem Samaan, 9459 S. Main, Plymouth: I am an attorney. I was present at the ZBA meeting this evening. Prior to commencement of the meeting the Chairman stated that any aggrieved party by decision made by the ZBA would have five days within which to bring an appeal Nw.. or a suit before the civil court. That being the case, I guess my question to the Commission is how can the Commission act on a decision made by the Zoning Board prior to allowing the aggrieved party, whoever it may be, their chance to appeal the decision to the court? Mr. Engebretson: Let me try to answer that, and then I will look to my young attorney friend to straighten me out if I happen to be wrong. It is my impression sir that every decision we make is subject to someone disagreeing with that decision and taking action in various courts if they feel aggrieved and if they are motivated to do that. I suppose that if we were to wait until every process was carried out to the ultimate conclusion, that very little business would occur if the basic assumption that every decision we made is subject to appeal to either the City Council , which is the case in many instances, or to a proper court of law. Mr. McCann, would you think I am on the right track here? Mr. McCann: Yes. In this instance basically all our decisions from this board regarding variances are subject to, and part of our reasoning is subject to approval by the ZBA. Their approval does not become finalized for five days. Ours does not become finalized for seven days from today's date. So our approval would not be actually finalized until seven days from today. Mr. Samaan: That is correct, but my point is the decision that was made by the ZBA does not become effective for five days. How is it that this Commission can add on something that has not yet technically been approved? Mr. McCann: We have been doing this for a long time. It is the question of the chicken before the egg. Do you go to the ZBA and get your variance first or do you go to the Planning Commission and get your approval there first. For many years it was you went to the Planning Commission and got your approval and then to the ZBA. They changed that recently. Now we go to the ZBA first. We still do many of the items subject to the approval of the ZBA. That in essence is what this one will be tonight subject to approval of the ZBA. Ours will be effective seven days from now. Mr. Samaan: What you are saying is whatever decision that is made tonight, will not take effect for 12 days? Mr. McCann: If something should change within the seven days, if there was a challenge or a stay with regard to the order of the ZBA, that would automatically stay ours. v► 13826 Mr. Samaan: Whatever decision you are making tonight is subject to their approval? Mr. McCann: Yes. `ow Mr. Engebretson: I would like to clarify just one point. Mr. McCann is a citizen, member of the board, and he happens to be an attorney but he is not acting as our attorney in this dialogue that we are having here. He just happens to be an attorney so we look to him occasionally to help articulate our fumbling and stumbling. Mr. Samaan: I understand. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #12-210-94 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 Section 18.45 of zoning Ordinance #543; 3) That the Elevation Plan, defined a sheet A-1 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 also subject to the conditions set forth in the approval by the ZBA. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi , Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: Alanskas ABSTAIN: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13827 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 695th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on December 13, 1994 was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. New CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R. Lee Morrow, Secretary ( " ;( ATTEST: y'(4(.iVj Jack 'EngebreJson, Chairman jg