HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-03-22 13353
MINUTES OF THE 681st REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 22, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 681st Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei Robert Alanskas William LaPine
Members absent: Raymond W. Tent
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also
present.
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance deleting churches as permitted uses in
C-2 districts.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a request by the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold this
public hearing and we look for a motion to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-65-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted uses in C-2
districts.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13354
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed
amendment to Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance establishing parking
requirements for transmission repair shops and other types of auto
repair facilities.
Mr. Engebretson: This item comes to us from the Roads Beautification Committee and
it is intended to give consideration to whether or not the City
ordinance provides a proper guideline as to the amount of storage
space required for these types of facilities so we will look for a
motion to set that public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-66-94 RESOLVED THAT, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held on a proposed amendment to Section
18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance establishing parking requirements for
transmission repair shops and other types of auto repair facilities.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #47-94, to hold
a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Section 4.02 of the Zoning
Now Ordinance with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball
backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 Districts.
Mr. Engebretson: As Secretary McCann said, this item comes to us from the City
Council. We need a motion to set that public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-67-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #47-94, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing
be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of the Zoning
Ordinance with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball
backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 Districts.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: We had a discussion as to whether we were going to amend this or
whether we were going to go forward with this. Is that correct
John?
Mr. Nagy: We will go forward with it but, depending upon the outcome of the
hearing, we may make another recommendation.
13355
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of the 680th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 8,
1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#3-68-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 680th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 8, 1994 are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Engebretson, Alanskas
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-3-8-5
by William C. Forster Corp. requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
alter exterior building elevations of the restaurant located at 17050
Laurel Park Drive in Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This proposal is to alter the exterior elevations of the Ground
Nur
Round Restaurant, which is located on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Newburgh Road and Laurel Park Drive. To clarify
something, there are already two existing awnings on the building
but because these awnings will be taken down completely and the new
awnings will be put up with new skeletons and materials, the
proposal before you tonight is for three new awnings. One awning
will be positioned over the windows that face Six Mile Road. The
other awning will be positioned over the windows that face Laurel
Park Drive and the third awning will be positioned over the
entrance way of the restaurant. The awnings will be a green and
yellow vertical stripe pattern and will be totally back-lit.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Miller, where does the third awning go? Doesn't it take the
place of a sign?
Mr. Miller: No, there are two over the windows and a third is over the
entranceway of the restaurant.
Mr. Morrow: Where is the third?
Mr. Miller: There is no third at this time. There are three proposed and two
existing now.
Mr. Morrow: That is what I want to know where the third one is.
13356
Mr. Miller: It is going to be over the windows facing Laurel Park Drive.
Mr. Nagy: They are taking one down and replacing it with a striped one.
Mr. Morrow: I was out there today and I saw two awnings and the sign. So there
is going to be a third awning?
Mr. Miller: They are not doing anything to the sign. The third awning is not
existing now but will be put up now.
Mr. Morrow: Is the size of those stripes representative of the actual size
stripes?
Mr. Miller: I believe these are. The petitioner might be able to explain.
Steve Hinds: I am with the William Forster Corp. out of Victor, New York.
Mr. Engebretson: Who do you represent, Ground Round or the sign company?
Mr. Hinds: The sign company.
Mr. Morrow: Is that representative of the size of the stripe?
Mr. Hinds: Yes it is.
Mr. Alanskas: At the study meeting we discussed if it had to be back-lit. Could
you just have the awnings and not have it back-lit?
Mr. Hinds: I think the Ground Round would be willing to consider that.
Mr. Alanskas: Because we discussed if you could change the colors to a more
softer tone but you wanted all your restaurants to be the same
color.
Mr. Hinds: Yes and they have done some quite extensive work in trying to
formulate a stripe pattern so it doesn't look circusey or
unsightly.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any restaurants now that are not back-lit with the same
type awning?
Mr. Hinds: Not currently.
Mr. Alanskas: How many do you have now with the three awnings now with those
colors in your chain?
Mr. Hinds: I am not sure of the figure.
Mr. Alanskas: There are some done with the new colors?
Mr. Hinds: Absolutely.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are any of the restaurants retaining the original colors?
Mr. Hinds: No, they are all going to the new color scheme.
13357
Mrs. Fandrei: I guess what I am having a problem with as I go around town, I am
noticing that everybody is trying to out color everybody else for
attention and I am starting to get the feeling that we are starting
to look like Detroit.
Mr. Hinds: I understand. That is what I was trying to allude to is they did
some real intense research trying to get the stripes just the right
size so it is a nice uniform look.
Mrs. Fandrei: There is only one right size for me and that is one color or what
they originally have. I cannot support this because we are finding
a few other locations like Pet Supplies Plus at Seven Mile and
Middlebelt went into these colors and they are strong and I just
can't be supportive of it.
Mr. Hinds: That is their color scheme nationwide and they are trying to
represent a distinct image so they can be recognized at a glance.
Mr. Engebretson: Well I am going to echo Mrs. Fandrei's comment that she made that
the move toward being a little glitzier than your neighbor, I find
to be of great concern especially in this particular location right
across the street from one of the jewels, a regional shopping
center that attracts a great many visitors, and while it is true
that these colors may cause the restaurant to be a little more
recognizable, you know birds up above a landfill are recognizable
too, and I think they failed in their mission to find the right
stripes and the right colors to not look circusey because I think
that is exactly what that looks like, no offense intended. We have
another restaurant that just came to town and it is a new venture
%fty that didn't have existing stores on line at the time they went
through their approval process and the resultant awning that
appeared on that store is so offensive to the neighbors, to
residents, to other business folks, other members of the community,
City officials and otherwise, that they have been asked to change
the awning and they have agreed to do it. This challenges that one
for most outrageous color scheme in the City in my humble opinion.
I, too, would find this to be objectionable whether it is back-lit
or not. It is definitely intended to draw attention. I had lunch
at that restaurant today with Mr. Morrow. It is a first class
restaurant. I go there from time to time. It is a good
restaurant. They have good food. They have good service. It is a
nice place to go. This downgrades the restaurant in my opinion.
This isn't going to help the restaurant. The quality of the food
service and otherwise is the key to success in the restaurant
business. Is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Hinds: No I don't think there is anything else I want to add at this
point.
Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your coming. Don't take any of this personally.
We live with this. You live in New York. We live here and we
drive by that every day and you know it is forever.
Mr. Hinds: Is this something we might stand a better chance if we did
eliminate the lighting in it?
13358
Mr. Engebretson: Not in that form. Not striped like that. It is the colors and
the fact that it happens to be the corporate colors doesn't cut any
ice at all. We know that major corporations, particularly
restaurants, make exceptions all the time in certain cities that
have real strong control over these matters. I am sure you are
well aware of that. From my perspective Livonia falls into that
class of city.
Mr. Hinds: If they change the colors to a beige and dark green, would that be
more to your liking?
Mr. Engebretson: It would have a better chance but we would have to see it. Would
you want to reconsider? Would you rather put this on the table
rather than face a possible denial?
Mr. Hinds: Absolutely.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, then with the light of the new information I would
like to table this until you can present us with the same type of
rendering and color scheme and I would be delighted to re-evaluate
it.
Mr. Hinds: I think they have done one in that scheme for another city that
rejected this.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is why I was asking you if they were all this color scheme.
Mr. Hinds: I think all but one or two maybe.
Mrs. Fandrei: We would like to see that.
u`,
Mr. Engebretson: We are not against awnings. We are not against upgrading
businesses to give them the fairest possible chance to compete in
the marketplace but we are concerned about standards so we would
like to work with you on this. Don't interpret this as assurance
that beige and green will be something that will receive an
opposite kind of view but I think that we need to look at it to
make a determination but subdued colors that are appropriate for
the area is really the key to success.
Mrs. Fandrei: What time period would you need?
Mr. Hinds: If you could give me a week or ten days.
Mr. Engebretson: How about April 12th?
Mr. Hinds: April 12th is fine.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-69-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-3-8-5 by William C. Forster Corp. requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to alter exterior building elevations of the
restaurant located at 17040 Laurel Park Drive in Section 18 until the
Regular Meeting of April 12, 1994.
13359
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-3-8-6
by Ross Financial, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by
A"' Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a building addition to the shopping center located at 33523
Eight Mile Road in Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This is a proposal to build an addition to the Northridge Commons
Shopping Center, which is located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Farmington and Gill Roads. They are proposing to add
a waiting or staging area for the MESC offices, which are located
in the shopping center and will occupy 14,265 square feet of space.
They are proposing to add the addition between the existing clock
tower and the inner elbow of the L shaped building. The materials
will match the materials of the existing shopping center. Also I
wanted to point out that at the study meeting it was discussed
about handicap parking. The new site plan shows they have added
handicap parking along the front or adjacent to the new addition.
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, that drop box, that will be towards the rear of the
building. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller: It is not on the site plan but I know at the study meeting she said
she would put it here because of the traffic.
Mr. Alanskas: So they would have to drive around in back of the building to drop
off literature?
�.• Mr. Miller: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that going to be posted in the ground or on the building?
Mr. Miller: I thought she said it was on the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is there. It is like a free-standing mailbox.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
The petitioner was not present.
Mr. Morrow: Based on our study meeting, this is going to be, as I understand
it, a waiting room or a staging room that will be built by the
shopping center. It will not be part of the state operation and it
was there primarily because the state has a no smoking rule within
their facility so this was to be added so that this would preclude
people having to leave the state buildings and move out into the
open area and mill around outside. This was primarily to give them
a place to, if they wanted to smoke or to stage, to do it on the
inside without spilling over into the parking lot. That was
basically the rationale for this addition at this particular spot.
Mr. Engebretson: Am I hearing the petitioner was not expected to be here tonight?
13360
Mr. Morrow: I am not sure if that was the case, John?
Mr. Nagy: In fact, I had an occasion to talk to Melissa this morning. She
wanted my fax number to verify that this matter was reviewed by the
fir. Kroger Company and they had concurred in that matter.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you receive that fax?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, as of 10:00 or 10:30 this morning, so I fully expected to see
her.
Mr. Morrow: There was no direction that her presence would not be required.
Mr. Engebretson: So maybe we should hold off.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to think they are doing that for the benefit of the
City of Livonia but another resident was feeling the pressures of
their milling around outside as I think Mr. LaPine will attest to.
Mr. Engebretson: I wasn't here so I am just taking directions.
Mr. Morrow: That is why I am trying to fill you in the best I know.
Mr. LaPine: I took the time Saturday to go over there and talk to the manager
of the Kroger store and told him what had transpired and what was
happening. He is not very happy with the situation being there.
They have had an increase in the problems there since the MESC
office has been there. He told me that when they first learned
about the MESC office coming in there he called the Krogers
headquarters and nobody at headquarters knew anything about it. I
Nair have a message here tonight that Mr. Larusko of the Kroger Store at
Eight Mile Road called and he wants to know, because I told him
that the lady that was here that evening told us that they got
permission from the Kroger store to allow the MESC to go in there
because she indicated to us that night that Krogers had veto power
over what goes in that shopping center. Apparently we do have a
copy of a letter here from Krogers dated June 30, 1993 giving them
the permission to put the MESC in. The gentleman from Krogers
wants me to bring a copy of this letter to him because he wants to
talk to somebody at their office about it. Anyways, he said one of
the big problems they have is the parking. The MESC is taking up
most of their parking in front of their building. I said it was my
understanding they had 50 employees. They were supposed to park
behind the building. I was through there Monday and I went through
there again today and it looks like they are parking back there
because there were about 38 cars parked behind the building this
morning when I was there. This was about 10:15-10:30. I talked to
the gentleman who owns the restaurant. He has a problem. He said
the same thing. They are taking up his parking in front of his
building which he feels is a detriment to him. Secondly, he has a
real problem with the drop box in the back of the building. He
said when he leaves there in the evening there are cars coming in
there and dropping these things off and he is leaving through the
back and he is carrying a considerable amount of receipts and he is
13361
jumpy about that. My wife happened to be shopping there Friday
night and the police were there at Krogers arresting somebody for
shoplifting so you have to understand I am not too happy with it
being there. I am not really happy about this addition. If people
want to smoke, let them go outside and maybe if they get cold
enough they will quit smoking. I don't really have any compassion
for this operation. From the word go we were told this was going
to be a quality shopping center. If that is quality that we have
down there, God help us. At this point, and I am not saying
whether I am going to vote for or against it, but I think we have a
chance to maybe do something about the building that is down at the
other end. It isn't completed. I am for tabling this. John
informed me this evening that they have a meeting with the
Inspection Department about what is going to happen with the
building. Until we find out what is happening there, I am for
tabling this and therefore I will make a motion to table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-70-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-3-8-6 by Ross Financial, Inc. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a building addition to the
shopping center located at 33523 Eight Mile Road in Section 4, to date
uncertain.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: I can mention to you Bill that the Roads Beautification Committee
directed the Inspection Department to look into condemnation
proceedings on that skeleton of a building down at the eastern end
of that property. I don't know where that sits but that was the
direction several weeks ago.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, my gut feeling is they will come up with a new deal
that they have some client sitting in the wings and give them
another six months. As I was telling John it wouldn't be so bad if
they left the skeleton up, if they would remove all the dirt that
has been piled up there for two years, level the area, clean it up.
When I went back there today, they are using it as a junk pile back
there. Thank God it is apartments behind there and not homes or we
would have a lot of people down here screaming bloody murder.
Mr. Morrow: I concur with Mr. LaPine. It is one thing to have a skeleton of a
building. Perhaps they have suffered some economic hardships but
to just let the site become derelict, let the weeds grow, the
fences go down, etc. I see no excuse for that. That is just my
opinion.
Mr. Engebretson: Something is going to happen there. The site plan has expired.
They are looking into condemnation proceedings. I don't know where
that stands. Do you happen to know John?
13362
Mr. Nagy: That is the purpose for the meeting to show cause here as to why
they should be cited.
Mr. Engebretson: So they are at that point?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is why the Building Department is holding their hearing.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you know when that is scheduled?
Mr. Nagy: I do not know for sure but we can advise you.
Mr. Engebretson: We would appreciate that. That has been a real controversial
corner.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-3-8-7
by John Del Signore requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a commercial center and storage building on property located
at 31862 Plymouth Road in Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Merriman and Hubbard Roads. They are proposing to build a small
commercial center with two buildings on the site. The principal
building will be 8,100 square feet and will be used for commercial
purposes. Because of the parking the site will only be able to hold
4 units in the commercial center. The second building, which is
located to the rear of the property, will be utilized as a storage
accessory building and will be 3,500 square feet. Parking on the
site meets the requirement of the ordinance. Landscaping is about
half of the required. Fifteen percent is required and it is
0r" about 7 1/2% landscaping. The site plan also shows that they are
proposing a sign and it would be a monument sign and it meets the
ordinance so it is permitted.
Mr. Engebretson: What would be on the sign Scott?
Mr. Miller: It doesn't say. I don't know if they know what they are going to
put on it yet.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do we have a rendering of the sign other than that little drawing?
Mr. Miller: No, it just says white background with black lettering.
Mrs. Fandrei: We asked for a rendering didn't we?
Mr. Nagy: A rendering of the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: Also a set-up of the sign so we could see it.
Mr. Nagy: There is a graphic there on the sign that says brick with white
background and black lettering.
13363
Mrs. Fandrei: We don't have anything in front of us John. We don't have an
updated site plan with the landscaping or the sign. I have nothing
in front of me. I can't see it from here. Do we have still those
parking spaces in front of the building Scott?
`o.
Mr. Miller: The handicap spaces?
Mrs. Fandrei: No the two spaces on the south end of the building.
Mr. Engebretson: Let Mr. Del Signore come down and answer her question.
John Del Signore: I live at 14680 Fairlane.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. LaPine shared his site plan with me John so now I see what the
sign looks like. It is brick outlined. Is that right?
Mr. Del Signore: It is a brick monument sign, whatever the City requires.
Mrs. Fandrei: It looks like brick on the sides and the top.
Mr. Del Signore: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I wanted to know. The two spaces at the south end of
the building, in front of the building where the sign is going to
be, you still have two parking places there, right?
Mr. Del Signore: Yes Ma'am.
Mrs. Fandrei: We are still looking at only 7 1/2% in the landscaping?
` ..
Mr. Del Signore: No we improved the landscaping. We took about 2 1/2 to 3 parking
spaces.
Mrs. Fandrei: Scott just said we went from 5% to 7 1/2% so we have only had an
increase in 2 1/2%?
Mr. Del Signore: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: So we are at half of what is required.
Mr. Del Signore: I don't know what is required but we have improved from last time.
I talked with Mr. Morrow.
Mr. Morrow: We had asked during the intervening weeks that you meet with the
staff and try to beef up the landscaping to get as close as
possible to the 15% requirement and we are seeing what the fruits
of that were tonight.
Mrs. Fandrei: But we are still short 7 1/2%. What my concern is John, the
Plymouth Roads Beautification Committee has been working really
hard to try and improve the whole image of Plymouth Road. Your
whole building, the Fonte D'Amore is an example. I mean it is one
of the nicest along Plymouth Road. You have done a beautiful job
there.
`''"' Mr. Del Signore: This would be an improvement compared to what is over there right
now.
13364
Mrs. Fandrei: There is no doubt. It is not really too neat.
Mr. Del Signore: Especially on both sides of us. We don't have any landscaping and
the building is sitting right in front of Plymouth Road.
r...
Mrs. Fandrei: What my concern is, because we are trying so hard to upgrade
Plymouth Road, I understand your generosity in trying to help your
neighbor with parking but I think our main concern has to be, there
is nothing there now and you are going to make improvements, to
make the best improvements we can while we have the opportunity and
to eliminate those two parking spaces in the south of the property,
which you admitted you don't really need. You are above the
parking requirement. To eliminate those two and to develop them
into the landscaping, which would balance the building you already
own and is your present restaurant, that would be a real compliment
to your present building. As I said it is one of the prettiest
along there.
Mr. Del Signore: As I explained at the study session, I promised my neighbor,
because he has a real tough time over there and I promised him I
was going to give him two parking spaces. I was going to put a
sidewalk over there and try to work with this man. That way he
will have two extra parking spots. That is what I was trying to do
there and I don't think with two extra parking spaces you wouldn't
have that much more landscaping.
Mrs. Fandrei: The sidewalk would have to be connecting anyways. The sidewalk is
already on the site plan. It is a connecting sidewalk and it is to
connect with the existing so that is already there. I guess what I
am saying is, I think it is nice that you promised him that, but I
No ' think for the Plymouth Road visibility for what we are trying to
accomplish as a City body for Plymouth Road, we need to eliminate
those two parking places and use them for landscaping, and I feel
very strongly about this John.
Mr. Del Signore: I made my comment. We did improve the landscaping from last time
and I tried to work the best I could. I would like to have these
two spaces but you do what you like.
Mr. Alanskas: Would it be a hardship on parking space #16 and #15, which is on
the west side of the building? Could you use those for that store?
It is not that far away.
Mr. Del Signore: If I have to go that route, I will go that route.
Mr. Alanskas: Would that help them out having those two spots there?
Mr. Del Signore: I would imagine sir.
Mr. Alanskas: John, what landscaping would that give us percentage wise?
Mr. Nagy: He removed two before and that increased it by 2 1/2% so
eliminating two more would put it up to 10%.
Mr. Alanskas: That is a lot closer to the 15% than the 7 1/2%.
13365
Mr. Engebretson: If that is all, a motion would be in order.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, I am still not ready to make a motion. I am still
not satisfied with only 10%. I still feel we have the opportunity.
`.► The back building is strictly storage. We are looking at a spec
building. Personally, until we reach a little bit closer to the
15% I am not ready to make a motion or to approve it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just make a comment that any additional landscaping in
the rear, Mr. Morrow and I were there today and it looked to me
like any landscaping installed anywhere except in the front, which
we have discussed, would probably be a futile effort. I am not
sure anyone would even see the landscaping in the back except for
the people parking in the most remote parking spaces there. Is
that what you have in mind Brenda?
Mrs. Fandrei: No, I am looking in the front. I think there are more
possibilities for front landscaping. We have had so many comments
from the community in the south end that Plymouth Road has been an
eyesore. It has been a concern to these folks. We have a Plymouth
Road Beautification Committee. We have one of our Council people
who is trying to concentrate on the blight of Plymouth Road and we
have an opportunity here to upgrade and to do something more
positive and I think we should take advantage of that opportunity.
As I mentioned before Mr. Del Signore has one of the loveliest
properties there, two doors over, and I would like to see this
continued on this building.
Mr. Engebretson: Lee Morrow has just suggested parking space #26 if that were
converted to landscaping, that would then square the area off with
the building to the west and that would probably be as close as we
could get.
Mrs. Fandrei: That sounds better. I will make the motion. Mr. Del Signore would
you go along with that?
Mr. Del Signore: Which one now?
Mr. Engebretson: Replacing parking space #1, 2 and 26 with landscaping. That
would square it up with that building to the east. Is that
satisfactory? Can you handle that John?
Mr. Del Signore: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, would I then refer to that as revised site plan with
today's date?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#3-71-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-3-8-7 by John Del Signore requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a commercial center and storage building on property located
``r. at 31862 Plymouth Road in Section 27, subject to the following
conditions:
13366
1) That the Site and Landscaping Plan, as revised dated 3-22-94 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered top
2) That the Elevation Plans, as revised dated 3-17-94 are hereby
tea. approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the underground irrigation system as noted on the landscape
plan shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be kept in a
healthy condition and shall be installed prior to final inspection;
4) That based on the parking provided on the subject property, no more
than 4 tenants will be permitted to occupy the retail building at
any one time;
5) That the Sign Plan, as revised dated 3-22-94 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
as well as subject to the following additional condition, granted in the
variance (appeal case #9403-24) by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) This site is to be developed and utilized as presented and
approved, i.e. the building fronting Plymouth Road will be for
commercial use and the building in the rear of the property will be
for storage purposes. Further, at no time in the future shall
these two buildings be connected.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Del Signore we certainly appreciate the fact that you said you
promised those two parking spaces to your neighbor and we want the
record to show it was the City's interest and the Planning
Commission that caused that to change. However, you did say you
°r" would make allowances for other parking spaces. I don't want it to
sound like you went back on your commitment to your neighbor. By
the same token I think we are serving the interest of the City
better and there will still be space on your property.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 681st Regular Meeting
held on March 22, 1994 was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
L
James C. McCann, Secretary
� C
ATTEST: 0 CIt() '1n
Jac Engebret on, Chairman
jg