Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-08-16 13584 MINUTES OF THE 688th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 16, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 688th 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. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg William TaPine Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: James C. McCann Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. \.. Mr. Alanskas was Acting Secretary in the absence of Mr. McCann. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-7-2-24 by Goldman Properties, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses for a proposed store to be located within an addition to an existing building located on the northwest corner of Merriman and Five Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15. 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 letters from the Fire Marshal and Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Tastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the existing building currently has a deficient setback on the south side abutting Five Mile; however, the proposed expansion of the existing building will not create any additional deficiencies to the site. They end by saying their department would have no objections to subject petition. 13585 Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Please come forward and explain the reasons why you are making this request. Joseph Rokisak, 36586 Pinetree, Livonia: I am a partner of Goldman Properties, `rw which will be the owner of this property. Scott Bowers is the architect who is here to answer any questions, as well as a representative of Perry Drugs. Scott Bowers: I am with Bowers and Rein Associates Architects, 3915 Research Park Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The existing building is approximately 9800 square feet and our proposed addition is another 12,718 square feet. What we have done is proposed an extensive greenbelt in the rear yard, 25 feet, and planted it with vegetation for a screen wall towards the residential area. Along the side next to the church we have proposed a five foot high wall along the entire side. There is an existing setback deficiency from Five Mile. The other building does not have any setback deficiencies. We have eliminated several entrance ways. We pulled them away from the intersection and straightened them out. There were quite a few different entrance ways and we added extensive landscaping at the front of the structure. The building itself, we are going to upgrade the whole facade and give it more of a contemporary look with dryvet on the top, metal brick-red awnings and brick work down below with doors for various tenants. Mr. Engebretson: What would presently be perceived to be the front of that store facing Five Mile Road would now face Merriman? Mr. Bowers: The majority of it would be facing Merriman. Five Mile would still have an awning and a door. We have eliminated the parking on that side of the building towards Five Mile. Mr. LaPine: Have you looked at any alternate plans to relocate this building, making it an L shape rather than a long building? Mr. Bowers: There isn't really a lot of room for us to make it an L shape. Mr. LaPine: I talked with Mr. Shane and we had our plan out here. It looks like it can be done. You may have to eliminate a little bit of the new addition but it seems to me the building would be better as an L shape building. I don't think the long building architecturally is not that pleasing the way I look at it. Secondly it gets a little away flout the church property more. Have you looked at that alternative? Mr. Bowers: No we did not look at an L shaped building. Mr. LaPine: Well Mr. Chairman I would like for them to at least look at that possibility because after you and I went out to that site Saturday we discussed it and it looks to me like it is feasible. I think it would make for a better type of building, quite frankly. 13586 Mr. Morrow: Based on the opening remarks, I understand this is going to be subject to approval before the Goldmans become the property owners. Is this correct? They are not currently owners of the license or the property? Mr. Bowers: Yes that is true. Mr. Morrow: We have roughly two known tenants. We assume that Honey Baked Ham will remain there. Mr. Bowers: Yes Honey Baked Ham will remain. Mr. Morrow: And Perry Drug will be the major tenant? Mr. Bowers: Right. Mr. Morrow: And the other space will be speculative or do we know of any other tenants? Mr. Bowers: We do have BoRics but the remaining space is speculative. Mr. Morrow: So we do at least have two? Mr. Bowers: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Under the Waiver of Use one of our concerns is traffic and I know from observing that site over the years that the Ticket Master operation can at certain times generate quite a bit of traffic. Are there any plans to continue Ticket Master at this particular corner? Mr. Rokisak: Right now we don't have plans for continuing it. The big problem is there is such a small space that they use inside the existing Showermans that you can't rent them a 2,000 square foot space for Ticket Master. Mr. Morrow: It was just an accessory use to Showermans and it does generate traffic from time to time. I have observed long lines there through the night waiting to get particular tickets. The other question I have is probably for Perrys. As far as the SDD and SDM, of your total operation what percentage does the SDD and SDM represent as far as your total overall sales operation? Can you address that? Lou Frango, 5400 Perry Drive, Pontiac, 48056: I don't have an overall chain average. Generally we view the SDD and SDM licenses as an incidental part of the business. It is part of the overall convenience that we market. By and large the pharmacy is the main component of our business accounting for 40% to 50% of the sales. We like to have an SDD license where we open. Where it is not feasible for whatever reason, that doesn't 13587 preclude us from acquiring a site. We pick it first and foremost as a good pharmacy location and we view the rest as incidental conveniences and departments that we like to have. ``. Mr. Morrow: So basically we are going from an SDD/SDM as a primary use to a prescription, which is the primary use. I would suspect that those particular licenses are among other accessory uses in conjunction with the prescription use because I know you sell a lot more than just beer, wine and prescriptions. Mr. Frango: Oh certainly. Our prototype store is about 11,000 square feet. We have cosmetics. We have magazines. We have health and beauty aids. We have a number of stores in Livonia. I am trying to think of the closest size wise. If you have been in any of the local Perry Stores. Mr. Morrow: Seven and Farmington perhaps? Mr. Frango: Sure, any of those stores would probably be representative of the product mix we would have here. Mr. Piercecchi: This facility really troubles me. I am afraid it is beginning to look like another small strip mall, subject to the many vacancies that we see on Middlebelt and Five for instance and between Seven and Eight on Middlebelt. We have a lot of strip malls. They have a lot of vacancies. Plus if you want to look at the ordinance, and I assume we all do, the current package as it is laid out is really in violation of 19.06(a) which calls for harmony and development of the area. We are just going to saturate it with more and more drug stores, which is the prime thing we are talking about here. Section 19.06(b) deals with traffic. Obviously this new facility is going to cause more traffic problems especially during the time of church services. Section 19.06(c) relates in part to property values. I can't imagine the drug store on Merriman Road there surviving the competition with a Perry, which means we are going to have a vacancy there. In addition to that Mr. Chairman, the particular site as it is laid out really goes in conflict with 11.01(r)(1) and (r)(2) . Although the current Showermans and other businesses are now in conflict regarding the separation of 500 feet from existing SDM licensed businesses and 400 feet from church buildings, these conditions, I am led to believe, were in existence prior to this ordinance and, therefore, had grandfather status. Nevertheless, permitting this waiver would further reduce the separation of the church facility from about 210 feet, if I paced it off correctly, to about 80 feet. This is indeed contrary to the intent of the ordinance, which is 400 feet. It is not our job, I am sure, to limit commerce. However, if you want to get dawn to the nitty gritty here, there are so many dollars that are going into the drug store hisiness. 13588 That would put three of them into that area. Unfortunately, when you have too many businesses of one sort in one area, something is going down the tubes. Mr. LaPine's solution would perhaps save that one drug store on the corner of that �.. strip mall. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Frango if the SDD and the SDM is a very minute part of Perry Drug's business and you are saying that prescriptions are a large percentage of your business, why would you want to come right across the street from another large drug store? What is the concept? Mr. Frango: The concept is we believe there is enough population in the trade area to support an additional store. All four quadrants are well populated and Five Mile and Merriman are both strong arteries carrying a good amount of traffic. Frankly, we wouldn't locate someplace where we felt that the potential wasn't there to succeed. We feel it is a good intersection. Mr. Alanskas: The Honey Baked Ham that is at the front of the building now, would they go and take the entire south side of the building or just the one side like they are now? Mr. Bowers: They would stay like they are now. Mr. Alanskas: But they are only on one side. What about the other side? Mr. Bowers: They are going to take the full length of the store. *4111. Mr. Alanskas: How many square feet would that be? Mr. Bowers: Roughly 3200 square feet. Mr. Alanskas: So they would be expanding quite a lot. Mr. rapine: Showermans, at the present time, is basically a beer, wine and liquor store. I guess a party store would be the best description I could give. Will the operation you are going to have within the Perrys going to be a typical Perrys beer and wine? You are not going to have all the liquors? Showermans has a tremendous inventory. There is no doubt about that. One of the biggest, I understand, in the state of Michigan. You are not going to have that type of an operation. Mr. Frango: No we are not? It would be our standard store and I think we are talking about 28 linear feet of liquor. Mr. rapine: So you won't be in the liquor business as they were. You are going back into the normal Perry Drugs and the amount of space you will have in there will be a lot less than is in there now? Noel. 13589 Mr. Frango: Comparable to what you see at Six Mile and Newburgh or any other Perry Store with liquor. Mr. Engebretson: Does Perry view that to be an attractive enough location to firy operate without an SDM/SDD license since drugs and prescription drugs are your main business? Mr. Frango: Prescription drugs are our first and foremost main business but we nonetheless would like to have an SDD and an SDM if they are not in conflict and if they are not prohibited by ordinance or by law. While we are not truly a party store and it is not our primary line, it is an incidental part of the business that we like to present as we do the cosmetics, film and any of the other components of the store, so we view it as an important, although not substantive from a dollar perspective portion of the business. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding your reference to complying with the ordinance, you would be in conflict with the ordinance, as Mr. Piercecchi explained, from several points of view, most particularly the distance you would encroach on that church's property, and while you can get relief on that from the Zoning Board of Appeals, clearly as far as the straight ordinance is concerned, you do not comply. Having said that, would you reconsider your position concerning the SDD and SCM? Mr. Frango: I think it would still be our position to try to obtain the waiver to obtain the SDD and SDM and if we were turned down, either locally or at the state level, whoever has `tor jurisdiction, then that is the answer. In many cases you are not supposed to be within a half a mile but if you are separated by a four lane street you can apply for a waiver, etc. so we would probably go forward and try to obtain the waiver and if we were successful, that would be our primary goal and if we were unsuccessful, we would be unsuccessful. Mr. Engebretson: Would you still locate the store there? Mr. Frango: I would hazard to say that we would but we would like to have both licenses certainly. Mr. Engebretson: Is any part of that property that you are utilizing in the site plan being purchased from the church? Mr. Frango: No. Mr. Engebretson: Is that proposed wall on the lot line between this property and the church? Mr. Bowers: It is one foot off the property line. Mr. Engebretson: Haw far from the church structure would that wall be located? I couldn't quite envision where those lot lines are out there. 13590 Mr. Bowers: I would be guessing. I am not quite sure how far away that is from the lot line. Mr. Engebretson: It is just a matter of curiosity. When we were there we 'r.•- couldn't tell where the footprint of that building was going to land and where the wall would be. Mr. Bowers: The building itself is going to be another 153 feet from the end of the existing building. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add sir? Mr. Rokisak: The tree line that exists alongside the church is roughly the property line so the trees would remain and the fence would effectively be on the inside of that. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Jack Freij, 38227 Lana Dr. , Farmington Hills: I also own Merriman Drugs. I have been there for a little over 12 years. Initially I, after living in Livonia and I did live here until recently, decided to locate my hisiness also in Livonia. I took over the business from the gentleman who owned it before me who had been there since 1955. I have remodeled the store and I am about to remodel it once more. I would like to briefly give you an idea of the nature of our business. We have become over the last few years, particularly since the beginning of this year, extremely competitive, dictated to the tune of 90% or better of our prescription business by insurance companies. Our profit margin has become very, very slim, and it is creating an atmosphere within the industry of gobble, gobble an increased market share between the two giants of the industry that are left. I have been around as a pharmacist since 1974 and for three years prior to that as an intern, and I have seen them come and I have seen them go. Many of you will probably remember the names Cunninghams. A lot of the younger generation won't. A lot of you would remember the name Arnolds, Revcos, and the list can go on. They come in and, in my opinion, practically destroy the atmosphere, destroy the market, destroy the business and take away the personal service that a few of us that are still left in Livonia offer, myself, Livonia Drugs. I can't name too many independents that are left in Livonia. I apologize. From my personal perspective I am against it obviously. I believe it would eventually destroy my business and yes it would create a vacant space adding to the six other vacant spaces that are already in the center. The center across the street has many vacant spaces. The list can go on in any center in that section of Livonia, which incidentally if you were to calculate from Middlebelt to Newburgh, in that four mile stretch of Five Mile Road I have counted six drug stores. 13591 That is 1.25 drug stores per mile. I don't know if Livonia needs another drug store unless you have had any complaints about my service at Merriman Drugs. I appreciate you listening to me and I thank you very much. `a.. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Freij, do you currently sell liquor and beer at your store? Mr. Freij: I do not sell liquor. I have never wanted to get into the liquor business. I do carry a small section of beer and wine as a convenience to retain the traditional image of a drug store. Mr. Morrow: Similar to what Perry was asking for? Mr. Freij: Not really. On a smaller scale. I have seen some of their stores, particularly the Six Mile and Newburgh where they carry a large section of liquor and beer and wine. Mr. Morrow: So with the liquor and the wine going out as the principal use probably your business could increase in that area. People in that area will be looking for other places to buy. That is not the main thing. If my information is correct, the zoning is proper on this particular site. Were they to drop the SDD and SDM they would only be deficient as far as the ordinance is concerned by one setback. Mr. Freij: By all means I am objecting to the use of the SDM but let's be practical. I am not going to lie to you here. Neither my business nor their business depends on the SDM license. Mr. Morrow: The point I want to make is without the SDD and SDM and a few modifications to that site, they could go in with a drug store providing they met all the ordinances. In other words, we cannot preclude somebody from coming in and setting up a drug store there. I just don't want you to think we can unilaterally say we don't want any more drug stores. The zoning is there. If the zoning weren't there, we might say we have too much commercial and agree with you but when it is commercial they pretty much have a license to put anything that fits that zoning in there. I just wanted to make that point with you. Mr. LaPine: Before you go on, you brought something up and I just want to expound on that for a second. In a drug store, I would have to assume, the biggest business is prescription drugs. Is that correct? Mr. Freij: Correct. Mr. LaPine: You are driven nowadays by the insurance companies. They more 13592 or less set the rates that they will pay you for the drugs. Is that correct? Mr. Freij: Correct. Mr. rapine: When a big chain such as Perrys or Arbors comes into an area, does the insurance companies pay them the same amount of money for the drugs that if your customers went across the street? Would they get the same amount of money? Mr. Freij: They would be paid the same sir. Mr. LaPine: So there is no difference in the amount of money. Mr. Freij: Per prescription as fees yes, however, this is an area that is becoming more dangerous to the independents. They have been, in the past, able to secure either sweetheart deals or exclusive contracts. Mr. rapine: So if one of the big automobile companies, through Blue Cross, said we will give you such and such a deal but all our members have to buy their drugs from Perrys or from Arbors. Mr. Freij: They, in a sense, have done that with the General Motors salaried people. Robert Goldman: I am the owner of Goldman Properties. My address is 1078 Puritan, Birmingham. I just wanted to respond to some of your comments if I may. With regard to the sale of the license �.• from Showermans to Perrys, it is possible that if this license is not approved for sale along with the site plan, that rather than Showermans we were also looking at other liquor store operators to come in and occupy. The fact that Showermans is for sale is not new or specific to me. They are going to sell that store. They have been out looking to sell it and it is not owned by Showermans. It is owned by someone whom I am sure you are aware of, and this venture has not been one that he wants to continue, so that store will be sold and converted. Whether it is converted to a Perry Drugs where it sits now without an addition or whether it is sold to another liquor store owner with the same name or different name, these are all things we do not yet know. I will probably close this transaction with or without a Perry Drugs, and whether or not I locate them within the Showerman facility. The only reason we moved them back and came up with the plan we did was because a modern drug store needs a higher roof than the existing structure allowed without a great deal of expense in contracting. The license should go part in part with Perry. If not, the license should still stay in effect. It would just go to somebody else. If Perry goes in there without a liquor store, then what I would probably do is put a smaller liquor store in the front to use the license. I don't know how that 13593 affects your thoughts but you should understand the whole play here. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Goldman. The issue here tonight is whether or `. not to approve a waiver use request to utilize an SDD and SDM license, a hard liquor and beer and wine license, in a proposed new building to the north of the existing building, and along with that comes the site plan approval. That is the issue tonight. The matter we have to sort out is whether or not to recommend that approval. If there is no one else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal, I am going to close the public hearing. Mr. LaPine: Before we make a motion I would like to ask the staff, is it feasible to move this building in an L shape and would that be a better solution to utilize this property than what they are proposing here from the staff's point of view? Mr. Nagy: It is certainly possible to lay it out in that L shape. Whether that would be beneficial, I think you have to consider right now you have a rear yard and the existing building has its rear yard facing to the west so that it is exposed to eastbound traffic on Five Mile Road. There is no exposure of the rear yard or service area to any traffic on Merriman Road. By changing it and making it L shaped, you are going to have the new wing having its rear yard exposed to Merriman Road. So in a sense you are going to have two rear somewhat smaller yards because of the L shape and maybe that is a trade off and maybe it isn't. It seems to me that with the rear yard in the manner it is shown it is much more interior further north from the right-of-way and therefore less visible to the traffic on the mile road. Other than the long linear configuration, I think just simply what is generally the undesirable portions of a commercial development, you are getting it further away from the mile road. Mr. LaPine: So you tend to think this proposal has more merit than the L shape. Mr. Nagy: I think this proposal tends to have more merit than the other way but that isn't to say the other one wouldn't work. This might have a little more merit. Mr. Morrow: John, I am safe to assume the church to the north was notified of the particular situation here tonight and apparently they did not have concern enough about the operation to visit with us tonight. I just wanted to verify that we did serve notice. Mr. Nagy: They were notified. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-7-2-24 closed. 13594 On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #8-138-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 16, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition `f.. 94-7-2-24 by Goldman Properties, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses for a proposed store to be located within an addition to an existing building located on the northwest corner of Merriman and Five Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-7-2-24 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the waiver use standards set forth in Section 11.03(r)(2) with respect to the requirement for SDM and SDD licensed establishments to be located at least four hundred (400) feet distant from any church or school. 3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the adjoining uses in the area. 4) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not `w oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 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. Morrow: I am going to vote against this. I know it is in conflict with the ordinance but the existing use, I think if it came in today, if I am correct, would also be in conflict with the ordinance. I think that the overall site with one major tenant going out and the other tenant already there, I have the feeling that probably this will be not even as heavily trafficked as it was prior, which as I indicated earlier was part of the waiver use, so it is for those reasons, the zoning is already there, that I am going to vote no. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: TaPine, Morrow ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13595 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. L.. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last mooting so we need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #8-139-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 be taken from the table. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: If I recall correctly Mr. Nagy, we had a request from one of the principals of this proposed parking solution who asked us to table the item until proper contracts could be worked out Nor. and signed. Is that a correct recollection? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. Engebretson: Do you know if those matters have been taken care of? Mr. Nagy: They did have a contract prepared and they did furnish our office with a copy of it. The parties, pursuant to that contract that we have, have come to an agreement on the fact of utilizing 31 spaces that is surplus on the Days Inn property. We have reviewed that contract and we have had our Law Department review it, and while it certainly indicates an agreement, the comments that came back from the Law Department, to use their words, it was a sloppily drafted contract. In one case it is a lease. In another case it is an easement. In one case it is a corporation. In another case it is a partnership. There were some language problems that the Law Department had but they certainly indicated that it was an expression of willingness on the two parties to come to an agreement. Mr. Engebretson: So they had an agreement in principle but not necessarily a quality document that neither the City nor the petitioners could rely on. Should we defer? 13596 Mr. Nagy: It is really a matter perhaps the two parties of interest should work out. I think the Commission, at least in principle, should be satisfied that at least the parties have come to an agreement. If you want to see a revised document, '"r maybe we could take action and hold it up until the revised document is received. We have called it to their attention. They are aware of the comments that we received from the Law Department. I don't know if the parties of interest have decided to do anything with it other than go forward with it as is. Mr. Engebretson: Are any of the parties here this evening? Ivan Benda, 130 Fast Sunnybrook, Royal Oak: I am the architect for the project. Mr. Severo Chemello is the owner of Herc's, who is the grantee in this matter, and we have discussed the matter with his lawyer. As Mr. Nagy has pointed out we will redraft the language until it is satisfactory. Mr. Engghretson: Is it your position, from your point of view, that you could move forward with this phase of the matter and that you could sort out the contractual arrangements between you? Mr. Benda: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Is the gentleman behind you from the other side of the transaction? Steve Gottlieb: I am from the Days Inn. We are in agreement with the contract "gory the way it is written. The words lease and easement to us are the same. The fact that the contract is going to be rewritten shouldn't pose a problem to us. Mr. Engebretson: As I recall you were the one that asked that we slow down the process here. Mr. Gottlieb: Two weeks ago we did not have a contract. Now we have a contract and it has been signed by both parties. Mr. Engebretson: So you are satisfied? Mr. Gottlieb: Sure. Mr. Morrow: I guess what we are saying is if they could have that agreement redone and approved by the Law Department before our motion becomes effective, we could move forward on this tonight. Mr. Engehretson: I think we could move forward on it. I don't know that we really need to be concerned as long as the spirit of the arrangement appears to have been carried out. Mr. Morrow: My only concern, and I am not going to debate it, but as time marches on these things get foggier and foggier through the 13597 years. I think we have seen it in the past where people have made commitments to get off-site parking only to find it erodes. I don't want to impugn anybody's integrity but those are just my thoughts on the matter. Mr. Engebretson: Is there any reason that it would be not convenient for you to have this matter settled within the seven-day period? Mr. Benda: We could do that. Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Morrow makes a good point. We will assume that you are going to do that. We have the option, within the seven-day period, that we could rescind this action and that does force it back to ground zero but maybe a good compromise would be to approve it with some burden put on you to get the contract done. It shouldn't be that big of a deal. Mr. TaPine: Since I wasn't at this meeting I am a little confused. They are adding an addition, adding seats, they don't have enough parking so they went off site and worked out an agreement with Days Inn to get additional parking? Mr. Engebretson: Yes since Days Inn has excess parking. Mr. LaPine: Days Inn at one time was going to be converted into another type of operation. Is that dead in the water? Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. `taw Mr. TaPine: Is the addition going to be compatible to the building? Mr. Ehgebretson: Yes it is. Mr. Piercecchi: How long has it been a practice of this particular board to require when they sign leases to pick up additional parking spaces that you specify a particular time? Is there a time frame that is required for these things? Mr. Engebretson: I am going to ask Mr. Nagy to respond because I honestly don't recall. Mr. Nagy: We want it recorded and we want it to give third party notice. Who is in jeopardy is really Days Inn. Herc's can have the additional seats as long as they have the ability to satisfy their off-street parking requirements. But if Days Inn ever wants to expand or enlarge and needs that surplus space to satisfy their requirements and they want to abort the lease, then one or the other has to go back to zero to meet the off-street parking requirement. Mr. Piercecchi: But in the process Mr. Nagy that place has been expanded. 13598 Mr. Nagy: Then they take out the seats. Either one or both are in jeopardy if they want to abort the lease or cancel the lease or easement, whatever they have. `r.. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any time frame on it? Mr. Benda: One year with an option for an additional year. Mr. Engebretson: So you understand sir, as has been discussed here, if for whatever reason that lease was terminated by Days Inn, that Herc's would lose the benefit of the expansion area in terms of seats. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #8-140-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 26, 1994 on Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission do-Ps hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-2-19 be approved subject to variances being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to an existing non-conforming building and a deficient front yard setback and to the submittal of a recordable instrument which allows the petitioner to utilize at least 31 parking spaces on adjacent property and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 7-7-94, as revised, prepared by Ivan Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 6-16-94 prepared by Ivan Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 137. 4) That any roof top mechanical units shall be screened from public view on all four sides. 5) That the Planning Commission will be given a copy of the lease when it is signed and the Commission shall have the option to cancel this resolution if this is not done within seven days. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in 13599 Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced Item 3, Petition 94-6-2-21 by Gibraltar Construction Group, has been taken off the agenda. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 686th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on June 21, 1994. Mr. Engehretson: We have had a transition on our membership during that time so all members were present with the exception of Alanskas, Piercecchi and Blomberg. That leaves three of us available to approve these minutes. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. L.aPine, it was `.► #8-141-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 686th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on June 21, 1994 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, rapine, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 687th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on July 26, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #8-142-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 687th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on July 26, 1994 are hereby approved. 13600 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: None `"` ABSTAIN: TaPine, Morrow ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive in Section 17. Mr. Engehretson: This was also a tabled item. We need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-143-94 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive in Section 17, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Miller: This item was tabled to allow the petitioner time to screen *tory his satellite dish, which is existing, a little better. Just to give you a little more information, as I said before the satellite dish is existing. It is 7 1/2 feet in diameter. It is located on a 6 foot high pole and that would make the whole antenna about 9 1/2 feet high. The petitioner has moved the satellite dish closer to his house. Mr. Engebretson: It is closer to the house and further away from the fence, if I remember correctly Scott, and they have planted a tree that shields the viewing of that dish from the street almost totally, and that the dish is not visible at all from the front of the property and very limited visibility from either side. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Engehretson: It is concealed much better in this configuration than we originally saw it. They did a good job there. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was 13601 #8-144-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive in Section 17 subject to the following condition: `.. 1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Louis C. Peppo, received by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1994, and as revised on August 16, 1994 to reflect the new location of the dish, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on this. This became a very happy ending because of your suggestions to get back to the installer and Mr. Peppo. I think it is best for Mr. Peppo and best for the City the way that this has been resolved and my compliments to you. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Continental Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building unit located at 29596 Seven Mile Road in Section 2. '`. Mr. Miller: This is a petition at Livonia Mall, which is located at Seven Mile and Middlebelt. This unit happens to face Seven Mile. They are requesting one wall sign at 46 square feet. They are allowed one wall sign at 46 square feet so it is a conforming wall sign. Mr. Engebretson: That is what we like to see. Mr. Morrow: Who will be the neighbors to the insurance company? Mr. Miller: Arbor Drugs on the left hand side and the Secretary of State on the right hand side and then Crowleys. Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner have anything to add? Paul Kadish: I am from Associated Group Underwriters. I have a request and that is if you should see fit to approve our petition, I would request a waiver of the 7-day waiting period so we can get it directly to Council for their approval. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was `o. 13602 #8-145-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Continental Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building unit located at 29596 Seven Mile Road in Section 2 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Continental Signs, received by the Planning Commission on August 1, 1994 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the last tenant in the shopping center closes. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-146-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Sign Permit Application by Continental Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building unit located at 29596 Seven Mile Road in Section 2. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-8-14 by Don Summers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to add to an existing office building located at 20010 Farmington Road in Section 3. Mr. Miller: This is the Livonia Professional complex office buildings. There are six separate buildings located on the site. To the northeast corner at the rear of the building is the building in question. They are planning on adding to the rear of their building a 1400 square foot addition. Counting the existing building, the entire building will be about 5,000 square feet. Because of the addition, it will take out about 6 parking spaces but the parking still is conforming to what they need. They are adding a little landscaping to the parking lot to beef up their landscaping. The elevation plan shows that the new addition will match the existing materials so the building will look like it has always been there. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, if this addition had been a part of the original site plan, it would have likely been approved because it conforms in every respect to all the ordinances and the proposal is going to end up with an appearance that would cause one to believe that it probably happened that way? 13603 Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Is this new addition visible from Farmington Road? 414r. Mr. Miller: I believe it would be because it is going to be in the rear plus the building is so far back you can't see the building. Mr. Piercecchi: I understand some of the comments here that there was some question about maintenance of the current facility right now. Mr. Miller: The petitioner might be able to answer that better. There was a question at the study meeting that came up that the tenants were unaware that they were in charge of taking care of their area and now they are. They are in the process of taking care of their area now. Mr. Nagy: I think the problem area Mr. Summers indicated was the greenbelt existing at the rear of the property. They weren't aware of it because it looked like it was something in common that all the tenants should have shared in it rather than specifically this tenant. That was brought to the tenant's attention that it was his responsibility because that is a site condominium project as a result of it being upgraded and refurbished and now they will maintain it. It isn't the whole site. It was just that one portion of greenbelt at the property line. Mr. Engebretson: Another happy solution. Mr. Summers do you want to add anything? Don Summers: I just want to reiterate what John is saying. The tenants that are in there, they have been in there since the center was built. They really were unaware of what the greenbelt consisted of and they have now signed a joint letter with the rear two buildings and they are going to maintain that, and I will be happy to present that letter to the Planning Commission. All I can tell you is they will honor their commitment I am sure. I have known them for 15 to 18 years. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Summers, what is that big pile of trash in the back with the blue tarp over it? Mr. Summers: That is going to be picked up and disposed of. The truck broke down. It is a pile of debris that was taken out from the greenbelt. What happened, Edison came through because of the power line going through there. They cut a lot of trccs and left them on the site and that had to be cleaned up. That is what is piled up there now and it will be taken out of there this week. Mr. Alanskas: If this is approved this evening, your entire parking lot has been patched and repaired but all the striping is gone completely. Could you re-stripe the entire parking lot? `.- 13604 Mr. Summers: I don't have that authority. I can tell you the parking lot for this particular addition will be done. Mr. Alanskas: If you could get that message back to them, I would appreciate `)► it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-147-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-8-8-14 by Don Summers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to add to an existing office building located at 20010 Farmington Road in Section 3 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site and Landscape Plan dated August 1, 1994 by Metropolitan Association in Pediatrics, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan dated August 1, 1994 by Metropolitan Association in Pediatrics, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed addition; "r.. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 688th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 16, 1994 was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION >17 f Robert Alanskas, Acting Secretary } t, APrFsr: \\Li(l( („ 1,1 ��. Jack Engebretgon, Chairman jg