Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995 01-31 13845 MINUTES OF THE 697th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA `r.. On Tuesday, January 31, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 697th 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 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: None Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and 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 1"" tonight. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-11-1-24 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A. 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 Al Winkel of Woodland Lanes stating he has no objection to the rezoning but he does question the location of the homes on these lots and the awareness of the potential home buyers regarding the location of the bowling center. There is a certain amount of noise at the change of leagues at 9:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. Lighting is also a factor. I have great concern about unreasonable residents complaining about normal business noises coming from the center. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you please take a moment and explain to the audience how it comes about that the Planning Commission initiated this petition? 13846 Mr. Nagy: As a result of other adjustments of zoning in the area, more particularly the lands that abut the property to the east, which follows sometime ago the rezoning of land to the south which is where the new Orangelawn Subdivision is being constructed, in evaluating those zoning changes and looking at the surrounding area, the Commission became aware of the residual piece of RUF zoning at the south end of the bowling center. In an effort to try to correct and coordinate development in the area to a uniform residential zoning classification, the Planning Commission scheduled this matter for a public hearing to hear comments both from the affected property owner, as well as other interested property owners, as to whether or not this property should be rezoned to the R-1A zoning classification so as to make one uniform zoning district in the area to try to effect a more comprehensive development of the likely subdivision to follow for that area. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Any questions or comments? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, the property under the RUF adjacent to the parking area, how is that zoned? Is that R-1? Mr. Nagy: Yes. There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-11-1-24 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was r.. #1-9-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-11-1-24 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A, the City Planning Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-11-1-24 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension of existing zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent any further encroachment of non-residential uses into the area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for medium density residential land use. 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. 13847 Mr. LaPine: John, this P designation behind the bowling alley, is that used by the bowling alley? `A... Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. Mr. rapine: It worries me that we have residential with parking on three sides. Too bad that parcel is zoned parking because that way we could have an established line along there, but there is nothing we can do about it now. 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 94-12-1-26 by Las Brisas Development Company and Perpich-Murninghan Venture requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Garden Avenue and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from RUF to R-7. 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 there are no public storm sewers readily available to service the proposed rezoning. We have also received a letter from David A. Gumenick representing Bayberry Park, Inc. stating they have no objections to this rezoning. Mr. Engehretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. Richard Sommerville, Tas Brisas Development Company. My brother is Steve Summerville. We are located at 24824 Marguerite, Flat Rock, 48134. A couple of things. Our background, we have been in business for 15 years. We are builders and developers. My brother and myself have both had four years of education in architectural design, commercial design, landscape design. We have developed a 14-unit apartment community. We have developed a 26-unit condominium community. We have built mostly custom homes, coordinated and assisted in many remodeling projects. We are also code plus certified builders. That is a program put out by the American Plywood Association. It just states that we are doing things above what the code calls for. A few things about the proposed project. What is there basically now, there are two 30-year old existing homes with block outbuildings in the back. There are no basements. There are crawl spaces with parts on a slab. They are in pretty poor shape. We are proposing to demolish those two homes and construct some upper-end apartments, approximately 12 units. These apartments are going to be from 1150 to 1200 square foot apartments with extra storage space. The exteriors are going to be traditional, all brick with dryvet material. We are using a very good architect out of Royal Oak who is good on detail. These units will have nine foot ceilings 13848 on first floor units for volume. They also have plenty of windows for light. We also think the market calls for washers and dryers. These will be large kitchens with oak cabinets. We `. also also going to propose covered parking for each unit. We are also not going to use tin structure. We are going to put an actual shingle roof type carport to match the shingles on the buildings with hip roofs on the ends. We have never seemed to find a good structure from these metal ones they use and they look like lean-tos. My brother has been to school for landscape architecture. We believe in lush landscaping, sprinkler fittings for the whole project and we do landscape for privacy from the surrounding areas. We have met with John Nagy twice on this. I wanted to get the City's feel for the project that we are proposing. He felt there were apartments almost around the whole perimeter of the project, and he thought it might be a nice plus for the City and a plus for us to develop it because the surrounding area is apartments and this would be apartments also. I think it would be a definite plus compared to what is there now. Also, in reviewing the surrounding area before we entered into this, we saw that most of it was R-7 so it would not be a spot zoning type of situation. Mr. Piercecchi: Is the side of your structure going to be perpendicular or parallel to Five Mile Road? Mr. Sommerville: It will be perpendicular to Five Mile Road. Mr. Alanskas: We are just talking about rezoning, not the site plan tonight? `.. That will come later if this is approved? Mr. Engebretson: Right. Mr. LaPine: Have you considered R-C rather than R-7, which is condos rather than apartments? Mr. Sommerville: No we haven't. We wanted to get into apartments. Our last project was condominiums and we thought this piece of property is not a real large piece of property so we didn't think we could get condos and garages and everything that would be required in there. Mr. TaPine: You may have to cut down on the design. I just feel we have enough apartments in that area and I think maybe the condos might be something that would fit in there. The zoning is the same except it is the "C" designation. That is just one Commissioners feelings. Mrs. Blomberg: Will you be the owners? Mr. Sommerville: Yes, we will own them. We are firm believers in using good exterior materials, brick and dryvet. Dryvet is the basis of the system that they used at Laurel Park Center. It is a very nice material, maintenance free. We, of course, being owners and managers, we don't want to be painting them every three to four years so we use the better texture materials. It keeps it looking nicer for the City and then we don't have to be out there 13849 painting it every three to five years. I have some pictures of the last project we did. (He presented pictures to the Commission) Again, these are going to be really set aside from any apartments you would call normal apartments. We are going to put fireplaces in these, nine foot ceilings, etc. They are going to be more of an upper-end type of apartment and we hope to attract a real nice clientele. Mrs. Blomberg: Sine you will be the owners are you going to have on-site management? Mr. Sommerville: Yes. Mrs. Blomberg: I too kind of go along with Mr. IaPine's thinking. Maybe a nice amount of condos might be better for that area, but obviously you have thought that through. Mr. Sommerville: When we originally met with Mr. Nagy we proposed a plan and he suggested some changes and we changed it. We were just trying to do what was around the area. In my different contacts with different cities, I found you like to keep whatever else is around the surrounding areas. We thought with apartments to the east and apartments to the west, I think there are even some to the north, that it would better fit in with what is surrounding the whole property. Mrs. Blomberg: But you would consider going to condos if that was necessary? Mr. Sommerville: I don't think we would. I just got through a condominium project and we try to balance our portfolio with sales and rentals and we really wanted to do an apartment project this time. Mr. Marrow: Just to verify what I think I heard. All the R-7 we see surrounding there is not condos, it is strictly apartments? Mr. Nagy: In the immediate area further to the north there are condominiums in Bayberry Park but on the contiguous property are apartments. Mr. LaPine: Assuming you have apartments here, what would the rental be for this type of unit? Mr. Sommerville: We are proposing around $795 to $800 per month. Mr. LaPine: Do you know the rental of the apartments adjacent to this parcel? Mr. Sommerville: About $600 for two bedrooms. Again, our square footage is going to be much larger. We did a market survey of about a ten mile radius and rents were going from $600 to $700, but their square footage was quite a bit less. You don't really see a lot of apartments with this amount of square footage. We feel, we were in the rental business for a while, our theory is build nice places and you get nice people and they stay for a long time. The biggest problem with renting is people are in and out all the 13850 time where you have to go in and fix things up and repair them. I would consider, if anybody thought the area was very saturated in Livonia, I would like to hear that comment, but we figure this \.. is a niche and there are a lot of really nice businesses in this area where people might be looking for a nice place. Mr. LaPine: Are these all going to be two bedroom units? Mr. Sommerville: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Two baths? Mr. Sommerville: Yes two baths. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #1-10-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-1-26 by Las Brisas Development Company and Perpich Murninghan Venture requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Garden Avenue and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-26 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area. 3) That the proposed change will permit the subject property to be used for multiple family residential consistent with the use of the surrounding properties. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan designation of medium density residential for the subject property. 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: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None 13851 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 94-12-1-27 by Phillip Barth requesting to rezone property located south of Schoolcraft and west of Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28 from M-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. Mr. Engebretson: If the petitioner is present, would you please come forward and give us your reasons for making this request. Philip Barth, 18845 Beech Daly, Redford, 48240: I built this building about nine years ago and originally intended that it should be for small offices. Evidently the office need is very small at the present time. I have had a vacancy in this building since the first of July 1994, and it is a probability that I will have an additional 2400 feet available very shortly. I am trying to increase the use of this property so it will pay taxes and pay me a little bit. Mr. Engebretson: It is your belief then that if this zoning change were to occur, it would make it easier for you to rent your space? **ft. Mr. Barth: That is right. Mr. Engebretson: You indicated when you constructed the building approximately nine years ago, that it was your intent to rent it out for office. You are certainly aware that it was zoned for light manufacturing? Mr. Barth: Yes I understand that very well. I also understood I could build office space on this property. Mr. Eligebretson: Mr. Nagy, the staff notes indicate the existing uses in that building, which I believe is a print shop in one instance, are permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district. In general, are offices permitted in any category in this M-1 zoning district? Mr. Nagy: Yes offices are permitted in the ML, M-1 and M-2 as well as the proposed C-2. Mr. Engebretson: So the petitioners original intent, it was valid at that time and it is still valid at this time with the existing zoning. The difference would be that with the general business zoning we would then bring into the arena many different commercial types of retail applications that might be suitable there. 'fir. 13852 Mr. Nagy: Correct. You are absolutely right. Mr. Morrow: Have you done a parking analysis on your site? rr. Mr. Barth: Yes I have. I think there are about 20 spaces altogether. My plans show the spat s. I don't have the plans with me but I did submit the parking lot plan to the Clerk when I submitted the application. Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have that plan? I wonder if we might see that. (Mr. Miller presented the plan) Mr. Morrow: Would that be two-way traffic going around the building or would it be one-way traffic? Mr. Miller: One-way traffic. Mr. Morrow: That particular parking arrangement really isn't conducive to commercial. I wanted to see haw he was going to get an additional seven spots on that site. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have a potential tenant? Mr. Barth: I have talked to several people. One of them is a butcher shop. Another one is an Ameritech company that sells all kinds of telephones and things of this nature, and another is a company that sells baked goods. In reference to the parking in back of 'tow as building, it would be mostly for the people that work there as well as anybody that might want to park there. You understand that if you have employees, you can designate where they would park. That is what the parking would be for in the back of the building. Mr. Morrow: Is the reason you are asking for C-2 is because of the print shop that is already in use? Would that be the reason you are asking for the C-2? Mr. Barth: Not particularly. I am thinking in terms of next year and the year after and maybe the print shop would be gone. Mr. Morrow: My question is that is only a permitted use in C-2. Is that correct John or is it a waiver use in C-2? Mr. Nagy: A print shop is permitted in C-2. Mr. Morrow: That would be the reason for the C-2 request as opposed to C-l. Mr. Barth: That is correct. Mr. k gebretson: Mr. Barth, do you have any other comments you want to make? 13853 Mr. Barth: That is all I have in mind. I hope you act favorably on this because I could use some good tenants in there. `�. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #1-11-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-12-1-27 by Philip Barth requesting to rezone property located south of Schoolcraft and west of Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-27 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the subject area is located within the City's primary industrial area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the further encroachment of commercial uses into an industrial area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan designation of industrial land use for the subject property. N"` 4) That the existing us-As in the building are permitted within the existing M-1 zoning district. 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. Mrs. Blomberg: When I was there I felt if we changed this that we would have more traffic, and that is quite a high traffic area on Schoolcraft. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add the comment that I am going to support the denying resolution, and I would like to simply say that the building is extremely attractive. I think there are many ways of leasing space, other than changing the zoning, and since the petitioner has a vacancy, I understand that occurs from time to time, but I also understand that there are ways of marketing vacant office space. The City has a very small vacancy in office space throughout the City right now. I wculd think that this problem can be solved through proper marketing and lessor/lessee relations. It is an extremely nice looking building, and I would urge the petitioner good luck in renting it out in its current form. 13854 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, T. Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi: When I visited the site I noticed in back of the proposed property a lot of junk vehicles. I was wondering if our City Planner would look into that and see if that is acceptable storage back there. I know that came up before the Council at their last meeting, and I think they are very concerned with keeping our City tidy and very presentable. They work hard at that. I think the name of the company is Miracle Auto. Mr. Nagy: Your concern has already been lodged and duly recorded with the Inspection Department. Mr. Engebretson: Hasn't a violation been issued John? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Do they have a court date? Mr. Nagy: They gave them a Notice to Show Cause. Mr. Engebretson: So no further action is needed. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-1-2 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1. 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 should the area develop as residential lots, it will be necessary to provide appropriate widening of Ann Arbor Trail to accommodate the turning movements to the subdivision area. Further, since storm water run-off from the area will be required to be outletted through the Hines Park area to the Middle Rouge River, it may be necessary to construct an intermediary sedimentation pond. They finish by saying their department has no objections to the rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave would you come forward please. Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What I propose is a 21 home subdivision. The sewer and water is on site. We are talking to Wayne County Parks about 13855 surface drainage into their Nankin pond. These homes will go from $175,000 to $200,000 and will be two-story homes with full basements. They will be brick. I will answer your questions. `to. Mr. Morrow: This is not a question, it is more of a comment. It surely is a beautiful section of the City that you are looking to develop. It could open up that whole area. It could be something worthwhile for Livonia. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, you said you were talking to Wayne County in regards to the drainage, what have they said? Mr. Soave: There is no problem. Mr. Alanskas: They will give you that in writing, of course? Mr. Soave: They will not do anything until they see the plans. They also indicated as far as the sediment pond, they might even waive the sediment pond. Mr. Engebretson: Anything more Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: I hope you approve it. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Janice Coyle, 34001 Ann Arbor Tr. : That is the first house that the subdivision would be across from. What you said is true. This is a beautiful area. That is why we purchased there. There is a lot of mature greenery, trees and bushes. It is a beautiful area. He didn't specify where his entrances would be on his plans. There is nothing that shows haw you would get in and out of the subdivision. Mr. Engebretson: We do have a pre-preliminary plat because that is a separate process that comes further down the road if this zoning change is successful, but I can tell you that Scott will put a board up to show you where it is. This is not necessarily a commitment but this is the understanding that we would have. Ms. Coyle: What I received through the mail, is what I am saying, does not have anything on it. Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and we are trying to be responsive to show you where it is. The issue here tonight is one of zoning. We understand your concern about where that entrance will be. Mr. Miller if you could point out to the lady where that would occur. (Mr. Miller presented the plan) Ms. Coyle: That answers the entrance but I still protest it. I would like to see it stay the way it is. 13856 Bruce Breisch, 36550 Ann Arbor Tr. : I also oppose the proposal for this. We awn the property which is zoned rural urban farm, and in the last 15 years that we have been living there we have been noticing a slight whittling away of this type of property, and I think we do slow have a great asset in a rural urban farm community in Livonia. I really would like to see the City try to maintain that type of zoning. Mr. Engebretson Which would be your property? Mr. Breisch: I am further up between Wayne and Newburgh. Mr. Engebretson: I understand. I was wondering if you were immediately adjacent to this. James McGarrie, 34081 Ann Arbor Tr. : Basically I agree with what these two people just stated. I would like to see that stay wooded due to the fact that it is next to Hines Park. If you did build a sub in there, do you realize you would be building next to a restaurant? My question about this retention pond. What is going to happen when it floods at Hines? There is a lot of stagnant water there in the summer. Is that going to back up to where my house is? Mr. Engebretson: Where is your house sir? Mr. McGarrie: At the corner of Dover and Ann Arbor Trail. That was one of my concerns as far as when that river backs up, is that going to have stagnant water into our area? New Ms. Coyle: I would like to add the fact of the extra traffic it will add to Ann Arbor Trail. It is overtaxed as it is. Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else in the audience wishing to speak to this issue, we will give Mr. Soave another minute. Mr. Soave: I would like to add that on this property in question we have a two bedroom frame home and the porch is all dry rotted. I would say if anything this would fix up the area by taking the house out. Mrs. Blomberg: Is there any way he could maintain some of the trees? Mr. Engebretson: As you will recall Mrs. Blomberg that zoning issues like this are either up or down and there are no conditions that can go along with that, but if this were to be approved we could certainly exercise a lot of control at the platting process. I am sure Mr. Nagy would agree with that. Mr. Nagy: Under the plat ordinance all trees that are actually outside the actual building areas for the homes, driveways, and utilities, four inches or larger must be retained. It does give us some control in that regard. 13857 Mr. Engeretson: Mr. Soave is well aware of that. Mr. Soave: I wouldn't go in there and maw everything down. I try to save whatever I can. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add Mr. Soave that while I know your intentions are good, the City has an interest in this and the City is going to start dropping the hamper big time on people that cut trccs down that shouldn't come down. I think you are keenly aware of that. You have been a responsible developer in other areas of the City but we don't want to leave the impression we are depending on your good will. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-12-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-1-2 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-1-1-2 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. ,ftw. 2) That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the subject property consistent with other developed properties in the area. 3) That the adjacent Middle Rouge Parkway will provide for additional open space for the lots permitted by the R-1 zoning district. 4) That the R-1 zoning district will provide for more lot sizes which will encourage the development of a modest amount of more affordable housing in the community. 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. Engehretson: I want to say to these residents that took the time to come down here tonight to object to this zoning change, that we understand your concerns and that these concerns are present in almost every single change like this that occurs in the City. There is always a reluctance to have a change, particularly when it involves removing forested areas that are pleasant to look at. Unfortunately, the only way to prevent that from happening is to obtain this property somehow and to then leave it the way it is. That is rarely a practical solution. I would hope that if this 13858 petition is approved and if this developer, who is well ]mown in the City of Livonia, should develop this property, that it would be indeed compatible with your area and would be an uplifting of that section of the City that you live in, and that it would not be as difficult a transition as you anticipate now. I want you to know we really do understand your concern. I had a similar situation occur two blocks dawn the street from me where hundreds of houses were built, and we got along fine once that all was completed. I hope that if this is successful, that you have the same results there. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Soave, the property behind the Nankin Hill Restaurant, do you have any idea what they are going to do with that property? Mr. Soave: I approached the property owner. He has no intention of doing anything right now. Mr. Morrow: The reason I asked is because this plat, which is certainly not in the recording stage, it doesn't allow for any type of ingress or egress into the existing subdivision. I just wanted to bring that up. He would have to seek access, if he ever decided to sell, from another direction. 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 94-12-2-35 by Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping Center on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating this proposal will require the City Council to waive the 1000 ft. separation requirements set forth by Section 11.03(R)(1) . Showerman's's at 31450 Five Mile is located within 1000 feet of the proposed site. Additionally, the Church of Christ at 15431 Merriman is located approximately 300 feet from the proposed site. Section 11.03(R)(2) requires a minimum of 400 feet of separation from all church buildings. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us your reasons for this request. Jack Freij: I am representing Merriman Drugs at 31320 Five Mile Road. At the time this petition was filed, which was immediately after the approval of the extension of the Showerman building and `o. 13859 converting it into a shopping center, at that time I felt I would need an SDD license to continue surviving as a drugstore in the area to meet the competition that was coming right across the street within the proposed shopping center in place of Showermans. At that time, also, I would like to add, as mentioned on several occasions by the developer, that the license would not be transferred. Therefore, at that time it appeared to me it would be a good move on my part to protect my business to continue to offer a service to the community and to protect my employccc, to apply for an SDD license. I would like to take the time right now, even though I might have been premature since nothing has happened across the street. I really don't know what the status is. If you feel that you cannot act on my petition tonight because of the 1000 foot distance requirement, being that license is still there, I wonder if you would consider tabling it until such time that they decide what to do across the street. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, we have had the same concerns that you have just expressed relative to the resolution of the facility across the street. We have asked Mr. Nagy to look into that to see what the current status is, and we will give Mr. Nagy an opportunity to cont whether he has any information or not. Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding that the Goldman Properties have in fact secured their deal and have acquired the property. However, they are still negotiating with Perry Drugs. Showermans is going to continue to operate in the interim until they do decide to take some other course of action in the future. Right now Showermans is operating and there is a new owner of the property. Goldman Nifty Properties have acquired the property. Mr. McCann: John, what has happened with the SDD and SDM licenses? Have they been transferred by the City Council as well? So they are subletting to Showermans at this point? Mr. Nagy: That is in process right now. Mr. McCann: They own the property but they have leased it back to previous owners until such time as they are ready to build. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: A point of interest Mr. Nagy, as the petitioner mentioned, it is my recollection also, that the intent across the street at the new Showermans shopping center was there would not be any SDD or SDM licenses planned for use across the street. Do you recall it the same way? Mr. Nagy: I do recall statements to that effect at the time of the hearings. 13860 Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, have they given you a closing date of Showermans at this point? Mr. Nagy: No they have not. Mr. LaPine: It seemed to me, if I recall correctly, when we had the owner of that property in here, if Perry Drug Store does go in at that location, I understood that they would try to transfer the license from Showermans to the Perry Drug Store. The problem there was it was moving it back where Perry is supposedly going to be built so it would be that much closer to the church, but it is my understanding that is what is going to happen. I have no objection to this gentleman getting a liquor license as long as we do not have a liquor license across the street. I just do not see the two licenses together. The problem we have, even if Showermans goes out of business and Perry does not go in there, according to our notes there are no SDD licenses available in the City. Therefore, you would have to purchase a SDD license from some other establishment. Mr. Friej: I understand. Mr. LaPine: I don't know if Showermans would sell it to you but I guess you understand. I think at this point, as petitioner has indicated, we would probably be better off tabling it at this stage until we find out what the final outcome is going to be on that property. Mr. Engehretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposed SDD license? Ni.. Joseph Rokicsak: I am part of the development team for Showermans. I am really not opposed to Jack's proposal but I might be able to answer some of the questions about what is happening at Showermans. The closing date is March 15th. As to what is going to happen with the liquor license on the property, it is not going to Perrys. We do have a lease signed with Perrys. Perrys is going in without a liquor license or a beer and wine license, and it is in the lease that they will not be applying for one. What we will do with the license and about $400,000 worth of inventory that is in Showermans right now at this point is not real clear. That is where we stand right now. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for coming in and sharing that information with us. Mr. McCann: Do you have a proposed date at which time you are thinking you are going to start construction. Mr. Rokicsak: We will start construction immediately after the 15th. As to when Showermans closes, it will be when we dispose of the license and the liquor. The way it is configured now with everybody's 13861 input, there is actually a new space and then Perrys and then we will work our way back. `�.. Mr. Rngghretson: So the closing date of March 15th launches the construction but conceivably Showermans could operate throughout the rest of the year. Mr. Rokicsak: I don't think it will but it could. Mr. McCann: Is there any agreement between you and Perrys that Showermans will be closed by the time they are ready to open? Would you be able to open Perrys while Showermans is in operation? Mr. Rokicsak: That is a tough question. Mr. McCann: John, he won't have occupancy because his site plan would not be complete? He would not be able to open the Perrys before his site plan is complete? Mr. Nagy: I think that is correct. I am not sure whether the Building Department would issue a temporary C of 0 but it would certainly not be in full compliance. Mr. Rokicsak: Our intent is to have the whole center finished. Mr. rapine: From what I heard from the developer, there is not going to be a liquor license at that location. I don't see any reason why we don't go ahead and approve this gentleman. That gives him some time to start looking for a license. Mr. Rokicsak: I didn't say there would not be liquor license at that site. I said Perrys would not be having a liquor license for beer and wine. Mr. LaPine: I thought you told us when you came in for your site plan approval that Showermans was going to go out of business. If Shins goes out of business and there is no liquor license there, and you said Perry's is not going to have a liquor license, are you going to have someone else move in there and take it over? Mr. Rokicsak: At this point I don't know. I have to do something to dispose of the license and the inventory, and at this point I do not know what that is going to be. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, a point of clarification. If another tenant somewhere else in that building were to seek to use that inventory and/or SDD license, it would be my understanding that they would have to go through the same process that Merriman Drugs is going through now. Would that be correct or incorrect? Mr. Nagy: If it stays within the four walls of the currently established 13862 use, no. If they go outside the four walls that Showermans currently operates in, then yes. The actual license, however, would have to be transferred. That is action only the Council can take. From a purely zoning standpoint, the use is lawfully N""' established within the confines of the Showerman's building. Mr. McCann: John, if they are going to rip down the Showermans building, as they are intending to do. Mr. Rokicsak: We are not going to be ripping the building down. Mr. McCann: What are you going to be doing? Mr. Rokicsak: We are gong to put a new face on the building. Mr. McCann: So it will match the current building? According to the site plans we looked at there was going to be a complete new front end of the building. So basically you will keep three walls, knock down the fourth, and totally destroy everything inside and start over from there. John, he is going to be demolishing over 80% of the building, therefore it is my understanding of the code that the use would not automatically run in that case. Mr. Nagy: When Ordinance 543 was amended, we created a waiver use approval for the licensed facilities for SDD and SICK, the language specifically placed in the ordinance exempted licensed establishments already in place. So the zoning ordinance grandfathers in uniquely the SDD and SDM licenses that were `toralready in place at the time they became waiver uses. Mr. Rokicsak: We will not have a 10,000 square foot liquor store there. It will not exist. That I will guarantee you. Mrs. Blomberg: I really understood that this liquor license was actually taken away when we okayed this building. I guess there must be an error in my thinking. Mr. Engebretson: I recall it that way too. I would be interested in having the minutPs reviewed to see what kind of commitment was made. Mr. Alanskas: That really diRturbs me. I know when Mr. Goldman came before us he guaranteed emphatically, he said there will not be a liquor store on that site ever. It is strong language but that is what was said. Now you are saying something entirely different. That is disturbing. We will have to look into the matter. Mr. Engebretson: There is no intent to be argumentative with you but we have a motto here that a deal is a deal. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-2-35 closed. 13863 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #1-13-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-35 by Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping Center on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-2-35 be approved subject to the waiving of the requirement of a 1000 foot separation between SDD licensed facilities by the City Council as well as the waiving of the standard requirement for a 400 foot separation of a SDD licensed facility from a church by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons: 1) That the subject 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 subject 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. '\r. 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 by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-35 by Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping Center on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-12-2-35 to date uncertain. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. A roll call on the original approving motion resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: None 13864 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Noy Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-2-36 by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to expand and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Flamingo Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. 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 enclosing a sketch of the proposed relocation of Milburn Avenue adjacent to the petition area, which the City Council has under consideration. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire Marshal's office stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the existing building is currently nonconforming due to the 48.9 ft. front yard setback where a minimum of 60 feet of setback would be required. The proposed addition will be to the rear of the existing building, deleting seven parking spaces; however, the parking lot will be expanded to the south creating additional parking spaces. This additional parking will meet the requirements of the Ordinance for the number of required parking spaces per Section 18.38. This proposed addition to a Nownonconforming building will require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the requirements of Section 18.21(a). A lot division and combination would need to be submitted to the Assessor's Department and approved to facilitate the development of the land into a parking area. This department would have no objection to the above subject petition. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us your reasons for this request. John VanBrouck: I am the owner of VanBrouck & Associates, Inc. With me is the owner, George Palushaj. George Palushaj, 19123 Gary Lane, Livonia. We want to put on an addition of approximately 3,000 square feet to the back of the building. We want to enhance the building because we do quite a bit of business right now. That is about all. Mr. Piercecchi: If I remember that site correctly, you do have an island of landscape. What are you showing, just parking in front of the building? What about the current landscaping that is in there? 13865 Mr. VanBrouck: The site plan that was submitted shows we will keep the existing island. In fact, we will expand it slightly to the west increasing the landscape area. So that will remain. Mr. Engebretson: What evidence do you have that you intend to do that? Mr. VanBrouck: The site plan that we presented. Mr. Engebretson: Did you submit a revised site plan? Mr. VanBrouck: Yes we did. We submitted a revised plan and also we have here a revised plan showing the increased landscape area. Mr. Engehretson: Has that been submitted to the Planning Department? Mr. VanBrouck: No, they advised me just to bring several copies tonight. Mr. Engebretson: It is going to be hard to deal with that this evening, but we will see haw it goes. When do you intend to distribute that material? Mr. VanBrouck: It is a very minor change to the site plan that you already have. (He distributed the revised plan) Mr. Engebretson: What have you done? Mr. VanBrouck: The entrance to the driveway to the west has been narrowed, which allowed us to increase the landscape island in front. Mr. Engebretson: Can you give us some dimensions? From what to what? Mr. VanBrouck: It is now 26 feet. Before that it was approximately 36 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: If I observe this properly, I see no parking in the front. Mr. VanBrouck: That is correct. We eliminated that and in essence created a new landscape area in the front. Mr. Piercecchi: I think that is a step in the right direction. It will be for your good. The more attractive it is, the more people it brings in. Mr. Alanskas: John, on the south tip of the existing parking lot now going to the wall to the south, what is that drop off? Do you have any idea? The question is if they have to fill that in to be level with the existing parking lot now, and if your existing wall now is say seven feet and you have a three foot drop, then you would only have a four foot wall back there. Mr. Nagy: They will have to comply with the wall requirement either through regrading the parking lot or adding to the wall. They will have to satisfy the wall requirement for screening. 13866 Mr. TaPine: How many seats do you have in your restaurant at the present time? Mr. Palushaj: 180 seats. Mr. LaPine: What are you increasing it to? Mr. Palushaj: About 32 more. Mr. LaPine: You show on the plan the dining area having 162 seats and then you have existing atrium with 40 seats, which is 202. Is that what is going to be there after you get the addition on? Mr. Palushaj: 202 seats. Mr. TaPine: That will be the total with the addition? Mr. Palushaj: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Are you planning on putting any new signage on the building? Mr. VanBrouck: It is all new. Mr. TaPine: Is that part of the package? Mr. Nagy: They will come back with the signage. Mr. Morrow: Just a question. You have eliminated the parking in the front. Is that correct? Mr. VanBrouck: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: What is the purpose of the two driveways onto Plymouth Road? Mr. Nagy: It is needed to satisfy the ordinance requirements. Mr. Morrow: That answers that. I couldn't see any valid use for it and being so close to one another, I was wondering if we could close that off, but if that has to be in there to meet the ordinance, that is fine. Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, to the staff, they have two large landscaped areas in the center of the parking lot. My count looks about 20 spaces. I see the back raw of space going right up to the back wall there to the garages. We were discussing wouldn't it be better to put the landscaping between the houses and the parking lot for noise and whatever reasons. Build a berm there with bushes for light, etc. The landscaping in the center is nice but it only does things for the people parking back there. Is there a particular reason there has to be landscaping in the center of the parking lot? 13867 Mr. Nagy: In this case they made a valid effort to preserve the growth of trees in the middle of the area. That is a noble effort and it would help soften the parking lot. I think there could be somewhat of a compromise. They could reduce the size of those islands a little bit and then shift the parking away from the south property line and extend that area without the total elimination of those islands. Mr. McCann: What we are trying to do is get rid of that back line of spots so we could put some type of berm there. It would help reduce noise, help reduce the lights for the neighbors. I know there may be some surplus on the east portion if you took the right half of it and made it half the size and lose three trees, you would get another five spots right there. I am thinking just a big berm. Mr. Engebretson: This is what happens when a site plan comes in at the last minute, and this is not fair to anyone else who is waiting to be heard here. Mr. VanBrouck: There were no other changes on that site plan other than the front island area. Mr. McCann: Since we have seen it, there was parking in front before. Mr. VanBrouck: There are three mature trees. It would be a shame to cut dawn any of those trccs. Mr. McCann: It would also be a shame to put 20 spots backing right into someone's backyard and having doors open and close with employe back there at one in the morning or 12:30 when you are closing up starting their cars and banging their doors when someone has to get up at 5:30 in the morning to go to work. You are encroaching quite a bit back into the residential area so we have to take those people's concerns in as well. I agree with you. I hate to see trees cut down. They are beautiful, etc. I also understand the people that have to get up and go to work in the morning. Mr. LaPine: Do we have any extra parking here? Mr. Nagy: There are two extra parking spaces. At one time there were seven but since they removed five in front of the building to expand the landscaping in that area, they are down to two. Mr. LaPine: What I was thinking, if we could eliminate six parking spaces, you could move everything forward and you would get these things away from the wall and maybe have them put landscaping behind those parking spaces. Mr. McCann: I am going to make a proposal that we go to the audience to complete the public hearing aspect of it and then take the site plan up next week. In the meantime it will give the staff a chance to look at this to see what they can come up with. 13868 Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Nom. Marilyn Barlage, 30536 Elmira: First I would like to read a letter from our neighbor who was called out of town on business. Mr. Kosmalski lives next door to us at 30518 Elmira. "paar Mr. Nagy, "I am writing to express concern regarding the impact that the proposed expansion of Archies restaurant will have on home owners and tax payers directly south of this property. Although I am unable to attend the council meeting, I have reviewed a drawing prepared by Van Brouch & Associates dated 12-12-94 and revised 1-26-95. The proposed scope illustrates the addition of parking spaces within close proximity (5 feet) of an existing wall that serves as a physical barrier between residential and commercial property. We do not oppose the owners' wishes to expand. Archies has been a successful business and a good neighbor, and we are confident that neither of those assets will change. In the event the details as illustrated on the drawing referenced above are now under consideration, we request that all parties involved in the planning and approval process incorporate the following improvements: 1) Increase the distance separating the parking lot from the existing wall from 5 feet to 25 feet. This can be accomplished without the loss of parking spaces. 2) Add single or multiple rows of mature evergreens that will be dense enough to block the glare from headlights and the noise that will `... be associated with this "potential" loitering area for both patrons and non-patrons. The natural setting with an abundance of trees and plants that made our property attractive at the time of purchase has already been depleted by a previous expansion. I believe this proposed addition will have a detrimental impact on my property value, and I ask you to consider these issues prior to initiating the approval process. Sincerely, Ron Kosmalski" My feeling has met with many of the neighbors regarding this concern. We don't object to the expansion or beer and wine license but we are concerned that we were here at the podium some years ago. Archie's in the past wanted to have a banquet room in the back and it was turned down. We are kind of afraid that this is what this will turn into if the proposed beer, wine and liquor license is issued. We have a concern about privacy and noise as Mr. McCann addressed. We think if there was a raising of the wall and mature evergreens so people could not look into our yards. We have pools and little children. We wonder about the lighting. We would like the lighting to be facing north. We were wondering about the hours of lighting. Right now we have a huge light that just bears into the yard and into the rooms and it is from the Oldsmobile dealer across Plymouth Road, so we were wondering about the lighting and if the lighting would be on all night or turned off at a certain hour, and what the hours of the 13869 restaurant would be with the beer, wine and liquor if it is approved. I have some pictures here of the yards, etc. The islands that they are talking about leaving with the mature trees ,` are very nice but the mature trees have no foliage at the bottom and you can see Plymouth Road without any barriers. Jean Kelly, 30554 Elmira: I am a neighbor of Mrs. Barlage and I agree with everything she said. Mr. Alanskas did mention a real concern of ours. Our house is behind the parking lot of Archie's and my bedroom window has headlights glaring in at night. If cars were allowed to come any further, they would be in the bedroom. That is a real concern. I do believe it would be a very big detriment to allow any encroachment further back towards our property. Mr. Engebretson: So you don't want to see any expansion? Ms. Kelly: I would prefer not to see expansion but if it is going to go there, there has to be some kind of consideration given to the neighbors. Mr. Engebretson: So if the extension were to occur and if that last row of parking spaces was eliminated and there was some berm and landscaping put there, would you object? Ms. Kelly: I would appreciate a taller wall. The noise factor, since the last expansion, has increased from Plymouth Road. We did lose a lot of noise barrier from the last extension. It seems that the height of the parking lot as it stands now is quite a bit higher than it was originally. Mr. Engebretson: As you heard that is a concern we have and that will be dealt with later on by the Engineering Department if this proposal is successful. Ms. Kelly: One other concern that I did have is the subject I heard about the expansion of Milburn Avenue or the changing of Milburn Avenue. Is this something that the neighborhood is going to be made aware of? Mr. Engebretson: I have no idea of what you are talking about. John, do you know what she is talking about? Mr. Nagy: Because of the offset between Sears Drive and Milburn Avenue, they don't line up and with the staggered set of traffic lights, it has always been a problem to handle that turning movement particularly from Sears Avenue with so many trucks making deliveries to the Sears warehouse, that there is a plan now advanced by the City Engineering Department to bring Milburn Avenue between Ventura's office building to the east side of the Chrysler dealer, to bring Milburn Avenue through that area between that and the muffler shop so it will line up with Sears Avenue on the north. That way we will have a cross driveway, but st]Gt 13870 it will not affect the residential neighborhood. The right-of-way will be taken from the office area and part of the restaurant property here as well to make that line up. There is ,4411. a plan and the property is being appraised now. Darlene Miller, 30472 Elmira: First of all, I have lived in Livonia all my life. I am for community growth. I am for business growth. I frequent Archie's. My concerns are a few that Mr. McCann raised. Obviously security. I live alone. In the first three months that I owned my home last summer I had one theft, an item taken from my backyard. From the activity going on at the front of my house, with the neighbors out, we concluded that whoever took the item, they had access through the backyard. I have kids jumping the wall and walking in the backyard. That is an issue. With more traffic and it being closer, obviously there is going to be more possibilities for mischievous activities. Security is a big issue, and I just wanted to voice my opinion as far as the parking lot right up to the wall. I would like some tall shrubbery, something to block the noise and lights. John Murphy, 30572 Elmira: That is the second house on the corner. I bought the house off my father. It has four big evergreens in the backyard right up against the wall. I don't get that much light but I do get the noise. You do have a drainage tile that runs eight houses down right beside the wall. It is about six feet to about four feet down. It catches Milburn Street in the first catch basin right by the Chrysler dealer's property. We do have a drainage problem over there. Archie's parking lot drops about �.• six to seven feet and they would have to fill it in and then we would lose the wall, so I would appreciate seeing the wall go up, parking area go back and some evergreens be put in, tall ones, not the little ones starting out, tall ones to stop the noise. The liquor license, beer and wine alright. You get hard liquor in there and I will get a lawyer. Sears Road, I saw the plans, I don't see any barricades. Mr. Engehretson: That is not the issue tonight. Tim Johnston, 11415 Merriman: I just moved into Livonia. I live off Plymouth and Merriman Road. I am related to some of the members that have come up here on this matter of Archie's. Archie's Restaurant is a good restaurant here in Livonia. I go there a lot. The proposed plan they have for the establishment of their building and their parking lot is alright but the matter is the wall, and you have already covered it, but I have one of the plans from Al Nowak of the Planning Department and I took this around to some of the neighbors in the neighborhood. We went over the plans, and we saw that the island would be alright but they would have to make it a little smaller. If they would move their parking spots back, they could still keep their island there and we would still get at least 15 to 25 feet from that wall with landscaping. It would be in code for what the City is wanting for the building 13871 construction of this layout. What I have in mind, I removed eight of the parking spaces and moved them back closer towards the restaurant itself and leaving the trees for the two islands, —eflor and it would still give us the 25 feet away from the wall that we are concerned about. The elevation of the parking lot is another concern that we had and it was already discussed. Mr. McCann: What you might want to do if you have comments like that, obviously we are talking about it but we don't have time to deal with each change. You might want to contact the staff during the week. They are going to be reviewing this. Mr. Johnston: Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Piercecchi: I share the concerns of these people, and I am very pleased that Commissioner McCann brought the point out, are we talking about 88-102 parking spaces? I don't know if we have the privilege of violating our own ordinance but I would assume the Zoning Board of Appeals certainly would permit that type of deviation from the norm and put some landscaping back there and please these people. Mr. Engebretson: I think that is where we need to get. I think there is a possibility that we can rearrange the parking lot and stay in line with the ordinance, but if that fails, then perhaps we would recommend that they go to a deficiency of parking by several spaces and go to the Zoning Board for their approval. There is a third alternative, that being that they could eliminate a few seats in the restaurant, which would shrink the parking lot requirement. There are multiple ways to go. I am sure we are likely to hear a tabling motion. I am sure the staff can work all these details out in the coming week or so. There was no one else present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-2-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #1-14-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-36 by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to expand and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Flamingo Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-12-2-36 until the study meeting of February 7, 1995. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to tell the petitioner that I am not going to be 13872 here for the study meeting next week but I want you to know that I will be supportive of this proposal if these various changes that are being discussed are made, and I will guarantee you I `.► will seek a denying resolution if we don't get the protection discussed at the back of that property, a minimum of 25 feet, everything to do with the lighting protection, the greenbelt, proper trees in there, the wall issue, and all of those things. I just want you to know so we understand each other where at least one vote is. The reason I tell you now is because I won't be here to tell you that next week. 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 95-1-2-3 by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval for a Class C license for an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road east of Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence regarding this petition that is not in common with the other? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Engebretson: We will go right to the petitioner. Mr. Palushaj: It is an existing license that we are going to buy. It is a Class B license and we will convert it into a Class C. We are going to build a nice place and as it is right now we would like to give them a glass of wine or beer, whatever they like. That is about all. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, could you enlighten us on this conversion of a Class B to a Class C? We just need an explanation before we hear the waiver use. Mr. Nagy: It's the first time I have heard about the upgrade. I need to review it further. Mr. Engebretson: Is it a license within the City? Mr. Palushaj: It is a license within the City. It is from the hotel on Plymouth Road by Stark Road. I think it is the Days Inn. Mr. Engebretson: Maybe we can get some clarification from the Law Department relative to the conversion of the Class B license, not that it is any of our concern. We will just deal with the waiver use issue. It is just a matter of curiosity as to how that works. Mr. Nagy: We would still have to deal with it from a zoning standpoint. We `t..• will do some research on it. 13873 Mr. Palushaj: My attorney was handling it. He said as far as the state there is no problem. Mr. Alanskas: By having this license what percent of business are you trying to pick up with the liquor? Mr. Palushaj: About 30% more. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked, I was there today for lunch at 12:00 and you were loaded. I had a very small sandwich and I was there for a total of 40 minute before I got out of there, and I am a fast eater. My thought is if you had a liquor license, and I drank and had a cocktail, I would be there for an hour and a half at one table. I would think you would be losing business by having a liquor license. Mr. Palushaj: Right now 8:00 p.m. comes and at 8:30 p.m. it is dead. We would probably get a later crowd. When people go out to drink they usually go a little later. Right now on Friday people go out at 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: What are your closing hours at the present time: Mr. Palushaj: Eleven o'clock. Mr. Alanskas: If you had this license, how late would you be open? Mr. Palushaj: No later than twelve o'clock, I believe. We have no bar, just sit-down counter. Mr. Piercecchi: If your expansion is not approved, would you still put in the liquor license? Mr. Palushaj: We haven't thought about it. We believed you would approve us so we haven't discussed it. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? John Murphy, 30572 Elmira: I talked with some of the neighbors. They don't mind the beer and wine. If they start getting the hard stuff, then we have a problem. Like the man said, one cocktail leads to another one. Beer is a lot more filling. Wine usually is not too filling but you can get a little wasted on that too. Most of the people behind the restaurant oppose the hard liquor. Tim Johnston, 11415 Merriman: For the liquor license, I don't have any objection. I am all for it. The only thing I have to say about that is as long as they don't have a bar in the restaurant. That is the only thing I object to. Mr. Engebretson: And there is none planned. 13874 Marilyn Barlage: We would go with the beer an wine but we don't like the liquor. In looking among some of the plans I noticed they are going to have valet parking. For a family restaurant we can't figure out `r.• why they would need valet parking. We are thinking this is going to be a more of a banquet type thing and that is why they would like the liquor license. Mr. Palushaj: There are no plans for valet parking. I don't know where she saw that. Also, I don't think we would object too much for Class C license if you would give us beer and wine. I think we could handle it with beer and wine. That is about all. Kelly Johnston, 11415 Merriman: Previous address 30536 Elmira, directly behind Archie's. I do understand there is a restaurant in the Ramada Inn, which is, I believe, two doors down from Archie's. There was a previous incident in the past at my parents' house, a peeping Tom. The police did come out. We believe this person did come from this restaurant, which they also have a bar and they are open late. It could have been a worse incident if the dog hadn't scared him away. I believe that with extended hours there is more of a chance with people lingering. There is a chance of it bringing crime into the area. With my husband not being home in the summer, I do go to my parents' home in the summer and sometimes I do walk home on Plymouth Road with my dog, so personal safety is a factor. I would just hate to see this so close to my parents' house and the neighborhood. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner to address the question that we have heard several times tonight relative to intent. The intent to possibly convert this facility into a banquet hall. What are your plans there? Mr. Palushaj: There is no intention of that at all. You need at least 1000 seats. It is just a sit-down restaurant. She mentioned the restaurant dawn the street, the hotel. That has closed down. We do attract very good clientele. We never had a problem in the 14 years that we have been there. Mr. Engebretson: On the public record here you are saying you will never, ever utilize that facility as a banquet hall. Is that correct? Mr. Palushaj: We have no intention whatever. Mr. Alanskas: A few years ago when you came before us for a banquet hall, how many seats were you asking for then? Mr. Palushaj: We wanted to see the most we could put there. We checked recently the nit we could go with is 300 seats if we used the parking lot next to Midas, but it is not worth spending all that money for a banquet hall. Mr. Morrow: What are your hours of operation in the evening? 13875 Mr. Palushaj: We are open until 11:00 p.m. Sundays 8:30 p.m. Mr. Morrow: Your intent if you get the Class C license, would that change your hours of operation? Mr. Palushaj: We still intend to close at 11:00 p.m. but we would probably be there until midnight. Mr. Morrow: In other words your doors would close at 11:00 p.m. So you are closing at that time but the guests may linger later. Mr. TaPine: It is my understanding, if I heard you correctly, that all you will have is a service bar. It isn't going to be a bar where people can sit around and drink all night. Most people go to a restaurant and have one or two cocktails, a glass of beer, eat your meal and leave. This isn't like a bar where someone can go in and drink all night. I don't really see any problem here. Most restaurants I go to that don't have a bar, just have a service bar, I have never seen a problem. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-15-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-3 by \.. Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval for a Class C license for an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road east of Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-2-3 until February 14, 1995. FORMER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-1 by Wilkus Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do I understand there are some new developments on this proposal? Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter dated January 5, although we received it in our office on today's date, January 31, 1995, referencing 13876 Petitions 95-1-2-1 and 95-1-2-2. Because of complications completing the land lease with the property owner we are respectfully requesting that the City of Livonia postpone the public hearings scheduled on the above referenced petitions until the March 28th scheduled meeting. Landform Engineering, Wilkus Architects, as well as Champp's Entertainment, Inc. sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this has caused and appreciate all the effort that was made to keep the schedule we were on. With any luck we can continue on this project over the next two months, resolve the outstanding issues, and be ready for the meeting on March 28th. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. If for some reason, we are unable to resolve these issues in the immediate future I will be in touch to reschedule our applications. That was signed by Darren B. Lazan of Landform Engineering Company. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. The auditorium is pretty well cleared out but if anyone has come to address this particular issue pro or con, we would like to give you the opportunity to make your comments. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was r.• #1-16-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-1 by Wilkus Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (Champps Americana) to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-2-1 to date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-2 by Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approval for a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was 13877 #1-17-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-2 by Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approval for a Class C r.n license for a proposed restaurant (Champps Americana) to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-2-2 to date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-3-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #731-94, proposing to vacate South Drive located east of Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30. 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 the vacating of South Drive. However, it is recommended that a full width easement for public utilities and surface drainage be retained over the area to be vacated. They further state it is their understanding that the south 274.17 feet of Lot 537 will be developed with Lot 538 so that Lot 537 will not be landlocked. Also in our file is a letter from Consumers Pacer Company stating they have no facilities in the area of the proposed vacation. We have also received a letter from Robert B. Rion stating it has come to my attention that you may again be considering permanently closing the street, South Drive, that runs next to my property. It is my understanding that this parcel was offered to the previous owners, Mr. and Mrs. Parkins, and they declined. Please be advised that I would accept this addition to my property if offered, as did Mr. Jablonski, my neighbor across the street. I did call Mr. Rion and explained to him the procedures for vacating and by operation of law upon vacation, the property would attach to his property, and he was very pleased to hear that. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, does he also understand that there is to be a full width easement here? Mr. Nagy: Yes he does. Mr. Engebretson: I guess it is fair to characterize this as a housekeeping item. 13878 There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-3-11 closed. ,%ww- On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-18-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-3-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #731-94, proposing to vacate South Drive located east of Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-3-11 be approved subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect existing public utilities for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes. 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more advantageously utilized in private ownership. 3) That vacating of an unused public right-of-way will place the property back on the City tax roll. 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. 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 approval of the minutes of the 696th Regular Meeting held on January 17, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #1-19-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 696th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 17, 1995 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Blomberg Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13879 Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-8-4 by Windy Knoll Farms requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a dental clinic on property located at 36051 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview Avenue. The proposal is to build a dental clinic. It will be a single story building with full basement with the main floor being 5,400 square feet. The site plan shows parking for this project, required is 38, the site plan shows 43, so they are conforming in parking. Landscaping, required is 15% and the site plan shows 59% with most of the area to the rear to go undisturbed and remain. New landscaping will dress up the front of the building and will buffer the parking along Five Mile Road. I think the petitioner has a colored rendering of the elevation but the building will be a brick building with an asphalt shingle roof. The rear of the north elevation shows a flat area in the roof and this is where all rooftop mechanical equipment will be located. They also submitted a plan showing this will be screened so none of the mechanical equipment will be seen in any direction. Mr. Engehretson: I see the petitioner is ready. We will give him the floor. Lee Mamola, Project Architect for Mamola Associates Architects: This is a color rendering of each of the four elevations (He presented the elevations to the Commission) We have samples of the actual brick selection. The brick is described as a reddish tone type brick with accent brick. The accent is a light tan used in a banding fashion periodically to add relief throughout the form of the window pattern to add some interest on all sides of the building. (He presented the site plans) The balance of the site is to be left intact in its natural state. The only exception during the course of construction would be the necessity to construct a storm drain line to the creek. Existing trees on the site will be protected during the course of construction to ensure their life after construction as well. The other point we talked about at the last study meeting had to do with the light pole heights. We indicated at that time the 20 foot pole height is fine. We can live with that and intend to do that. The pole is a prefinished aluminum pole. It is our intention to provide opaque fencing entirely around the dumpster. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, would you tell us what your plans are relative to relocating that Belle Drain that flaws on that property? Mr. Mamola: It is our understanding that there is a resolution, apparently between the City Engineering Department, the City Council and the current landowner of this property, to straighten out that 13880 portion of the creek here. It is the doctor's intention to cooperate with the City Engineering Department to allow that to occur, and it is the doctor's intention to grant the appropriate easements to allow that construction to occur. I have seen a diagram prepared by the Engineering Department and not only would it somewhat straighten out that creek but it would also supplement some plantings on one side of the creek as well. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, that issue is a matter between the City and the original property owner. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. EngPhretson: Are you satisfied that there is adequate control there to enforce the compliance. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department is not going to issue a permit to commence construction until that is resolved. Mr. Engebretson: That sounds like pretty satisfactory insurance to me. Mr. Pierceachi: John, how much vacant property will be between this site and the street to the east? Mr. Nagy: Probably a comparable amount of property as is involved here. Mr. Morrow: Along the same lines, we do have a potential third builder on that particular site? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: To follow on John, does this abut the credit union property? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it does on the west. Mr. Engebretson: So we could look for the possibility of a similar building? Mr. Nagy: The original parcel was divided into three sections. This is the center of the three pieces. Mr. Alanskas: On your site plan your landscaping, isn't that all existing now in the back of the building. There is nothing new as far as the back, is there? Mr. Mamola: South of the dotted line is all existing. We are supplementing three maybe four canopy trees north of that line. Mr. Alanskas: The trees you are putting in, how tall will they be? Mr. Mamola: I believe they are a four inch caliber tree. 13881 Mr. Alanskas: We are always concerned about the neighbors behind you, and with the existing trccs there now, there is not that much of a screen for the neighbors. If you could put as much as you could back `.. there to appease the neighbors. Mr. Mamola: We certainly would be willing to go along with that. One of the little difficulties, you might say an alternative choice would be to look at pine trees. When you put pine trees in a somewhat forested area, you have to be concerned that the pine tree will live in the environment that you are going to put it in. We have a concern about the drainage in this area. I understand, however, that an Engineering document showing a schematic sketch that the creek comes down through here, they feel comfortable with proposing pine trccs down in this area closer to the residential neighborhood. Mr. Alanskas: Just so they get as much screening as possible. Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Nagy, about this drain they are rerouting, when you reroute water it normally seeks its own way. Is there going to be rock or anything put in there so it won't erode? Mr. Nagy: The banks will be stabilized. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, just to follow up on Mrs. Blomberg's question, at whose expense will all these improvements be made? I don't know if it really matters, but is the City coming into this? ,our Mr. Nagy: The burden is entirely on the existing property owner and the City of Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: The previous property owner? Mr. Nagy: Yes, Greenfield Construction Company. Mr. Engebretson: We all recall vividly that there are some severe erosion problems back there. It would sure be good if we could alleviate those problems, and it sounds like the Engineering Department is heading in that direction, and apparently Greenfield has agreed to do that. There is really nothing to discuss with this gentlemen but I feel it is still good to have that a part of the record. Mr. Piercecchi: If I understood the gentleman correctly, they have no objection to putting pine trees in there as a screen so I would like to have whoever makes the approving resolution to include that, because they really screen. Is it possible to include that? Mr. Engebretson: It certainly is. You may make the resolution or you may amend the motion if the maker doesn't comply with your request. You will get it in one way or another. 13882 Mr. Morrow: I just want a point of clarification. Did the petitioner say if he were to put pine trccs there, there would be a question if they would survive? Mr. Mamola: That is correct. What I would prefer to do, I would prefer to consult our landscape architect and if in his professional judgment he feels the pine trccs would survive, we would certainly be willing to cooperate and provide the screening. However, we would certainly hate to go to the expense of installing some significant trees if there was a likelihood they might not survive. Mr. Morrow: Sir, we may be in luck because we have a couple of landscape architects with us tonight. Mr. Nagy: There is an evergreen tree called a Hemlock, that is shade tolerant that lets it grow in a dense woods. It did very well in the restoration plan for the Livonia Parishes Credit Union where they inadvertently went into that area with their grading equipment. They are restoring that area with Hemlocks. The Hemlock would do well in that area. Mr. Morrow: Are you satisfied with that input? If your landscape architect agrees with our landscape architect, I think we can do business. Mr. Mamola: I think we are all on the same wavelength here. Mr. Alanskas: On your elevation on the top of the peak on the roof, will that basically be as high as your neighbor to the east or higher? Nmy Mr. Mamola: I think their roof only went up in the last day or two. I would say it is going to be very much the same. You may technically be off a few inches but the distance between the buildings you would hardly notice. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #1-20-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-1-8-4 by Windy Knoll Farms requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a dental clinic on property located at 36051 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as SP-1 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except for the fact that the easement for the Bell Creek Drain located on the subject property shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Department; 2) That the height of the light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 ft. ; Nom. 13883 3) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be doubled striped; 4) That the trash dumpster shall be enclosed on three sides by brick walls that match the clinic's exterior, and the entrance shall be concealed by two wooden gats; 5) That the Landscape Plan, defined as LP-1 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-4 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8) That the roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened as shown on the schematic cross-section drawing dated Jan. 23, 1995 by Mamola Associates Architects; 9) That the canopy trccc proposed to the south along the drainage easement area may be substituted by evergreen trccc such as pine or hemlock. `r.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: We do have one additional item. That is correspondence that comes to us from the Inspection Department pertaining to an item brought up at our last meeting. It is a letter addressed to Mr. Shane from Mr. MacDonald dated January 31 and it reads as follows: On January 6, 1995, a violation was sent to Goodwill Industries to remove the drop box and semi trailer from the property at the Weirton Plaza Shopping Center. They were removed by January 24, 1995. Last November Olympia Fitness Center occupied the space at the rear of the new Arbor Drug Store. They moved in without making arrangements for a permanent sign and relied on a temporary banner for identification. An inspector informed them that they could not have the banner for more than a short period of time. He suggested that they contact a sign company to apply for a permit for a proper sign to replace the banner. On January 17th, the inspector observed a second banner had been erected and sent a violation ordering the removal of the banners no later than January 30, 1995. As of yesterday (this was dated January 31st) the large banner attached to the railing around the truckwell has been removed. The smaller banner over the entrance door remains but should be removed shortly. Finally, Farmer Jack was expected to have made repairs to the damaged asphalt areas before the end of the 1994 paving season. 13884 Attached is a copy of a letter from Ted Tulupman, Property Manager for Farmer Jacks, which states why it wasn't done, and that letter goes on to say "That this project will be given priority consideration in the spring of 1995" and I trust that Mr. MacDonald will hold them accountable to that commitment. That concludes the report from the Inspection Department dealing with three items that we expressed concern with at our last meeting. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 697th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on January 31, 1995 was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R. Lee Morrow, Secretary C &L4c Jay( Engebrrtson, Chairman r,`, jg