Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-08-24 12965 MINUTES OF THE 669th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 24, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 669th Regular Meeting and 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 15 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Al Nowak, Planner III, 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #446-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bicentennial Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, from RUFA and PL to R-3. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department setting forth a legal description for this property. We have also received a letter from Jim and Kathy McClain of 19208 Fitzgerald expressing their concern regarding development of this property. They are concerned if this property is developed for single family homes, how it will affect the flow of water through the creek. As it stands now, the flow of water immediately behind the petitioned property, which occurs at the house next to them, is very poor and flooding occurs regularly whenever there is a rain storm. They question how will development of the petitioned property affect the r 12966 flow of water from Fitzgerald through the property. They end by stating it is their hope that development of this property would mean an overhaul of the creek so all the existing flooding would stop and ask that the Planning Commission take into consideration �.. the current and potential problems with the creek in the development of this property. Mr. Engebretson: H, would it be your impression the writer of that letter is the property owner that came through this process several years ago and there were considerable questions regarding the flooding issue there? Is it that new home these folks own? Mr. Shane: Yes. As a matter of fact, they received permission from the DNR to re-route the creek on their own property to provide an area to actually build their structure. That is the part they are talking about. Mr. Engebretson: That leads to my next question. It is my recollection that the DNR had considerable involvement in that issue. Would it be your impression that the DNR would once again become involved here to assure those folks and the other neighbors in that area that their interests would be protected? Mr. Shane: Absolutely. Any development that affects that open drainage course would require permits from the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Engebretson: Would the City Engineering Department also have an interest in protecting that area? Mr. Shane: Yes but the controlling interest will be the DNR. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner, 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 93-7-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-158-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 24, 1993 on Petition 93-7-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #446-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bicentennial Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, from RUFA and PL to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-7-1-11 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 will provide for more efficient utilization of the various parcels involved. 12967 3) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject lands as low density residential. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 11543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: I would certainly support this petition because I feel R-3 is appropriate for the area. The only concern I had was the fact I was hoping the City could find an alternate site in the same general area so the fire station could go on this alternate site so when we develop the property, before it is platted, we could develop the whole piece in a residential fashion. I still hope between now and that time perhaps an alternate site might be found so ultimately this whole segment along here could be an R-3 classification. Mr. LaPine: I appreciate what Mr. Morrow is saying and I agree 100%. I am not really thrilled to have that fire station there. I would prefer to see it all developed residential but at this stage of the game I don't see any reason to hold up this part of it. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, I would just like some reassurance on the issues raised in that letter. I think they raise some very valid points of concern and presumably this property is large enough so that if it were to be developed residentially, it would require platting and that whole process. ',tarMr. Shane: Yes it would. Mr. Engebretson: At that time we could get into those issues. Is the staff satisfied all those interests could be protected? Mr. Shane: Yes we are. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-2-17 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a new SDM license for a proposed Arbor Drug Store to be located within an existing shopping center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Angling Road and Grand River Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: 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's office and the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division 12968 stating the center already has an S.D.M. license (Farmer Jack). The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 500' separation between buildings housing S.D.M. licenses unless waived by the City Council. Mr. Engebretson: For those of you in the audience I might mention that an SDM is a beer and wine license. This is not a permitted use in a C-2 zoning district but it is a waiver use, which is another way of saying it is permitted with special approval, being this procedure we are going through this evening. Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your reasons for making this request. Kim Sinclair: I represent Arbor Drugs on this matter. We are requesting this petition based upon the fact we offer beer and wine to all of our customers typically in all of our store locations. Again, there are no other reasons we really want it in our store. If we were denied it, we would accept it but we would prefer to offer this product as we do typically in all our locations. Mr. Tent: Ms. Sinclair, along with this petition, can you share with us how Arbor Drugs is going to improve that particular location? What are you going to do to renovate and upgrade that particular location? Ms. Sinclair: The location will be completely renovated externally and internally. I have a color rendering I brought in for your review and you may keep it if you like. It shows how we are going to redo the whole front of the building, the facia, all the brick, complete renovation inside and out. The store will take on our new interior layout and it will basically look like every other Arbor Drug Store that was built in the last couple of years. Mr. Tent: The parking lot will be redone and restriped and upgraded? Ms. Sinclair: Yes, that is correct. Our store will take up about 11,000 square feet and that is a 100,000 square foot shopping center. There will be ample parking. The parking lot will be completely renovated. In conjunction with what Arbor Drugs will be contributing, obviously our landlord is working very closely with us on this project. Mr. Tent: The mechanical units on the rooftop will be shielded and screened from the public view? Ms. Sinclair: Yes, this was brought to our attention. We are in compliance with what the Commission has requested. We will completely enclose those with steel and existing material that matches the facia of the building. Mr. Tent: You are aware there is a 500 foot separation requirement by the zoning ordinance and that has to be waived and approved by the Council? Ms. Sinclair: We are aware of that. 12969 Mr. Engebretson: We would be interested in having the benefit of that color rendering. Ms. Sinclair turned the color rendering over to the Commission. Nor Mr. LaPine: At the south end of your property there is a deep loading well. Is that going to stay? Do you use that or is that for Farmer Jack? Ms. Sinclair: I would guess that loading well would be for Farmer Jack. Most of our deliveries are in the rear. In fact, they always are made in the rear. Basically, it is by an Arbor Drug truck and, of course, our various vendors deliver in the rear of the building. Normally a ramp off the rear of the truck is used. I would say we will not use that loading ramp. Mr. LaPine: On the south side of the property there is a wall right up close to the residential neighbors. There is a big sign painted on there "No Parking". Is there any way we can get that cleaned off that wall? Ms. Sinclair: Is it painted on the wall? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Ms. Sinclair: I will go back to my Construction Department and the landlord and my Real Estate Department and inquire. I don't see a problem with that. Mr. LaPine: It looks like it could have been sprayed on by some kids. '+rr. Ms. Sinclair: I would guess that we would want to take care of that. Normally we renovate the entire surrounding area around our building and that is maintained properly. Mr. LaPine: One last question. Directly across the street from you across Grand River, which is part of Livonia too, there is a Perry Drug Store there. My question is with two drug stores that are basically in competition with each other, your primary service is prescriptions? Ms. Sinclair: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: Can two drug stores in that close proximity survive? Ms. Sinclair: Certainly. In a lot of cases we build stores within two miles of our own store. We select a location based on a number of factors, one of the biggest one being the population and the density of that population in proximity to that store. You will find in many cases that it is close but it is separated by a roadway and a lot of times it is more convenient for the customers that reside on that side. It makes it more convenient. We take a lot of time selecting our sites and we would not go into a long-term lease, and I tell you this is a long-term lease, without being careful to make sure our business could be supported there. 12970 Mr. LaPine: One more question. I want to make sure I understood what you said. If the liquor license was denied by this board, that will not determine whether you will move in there or not? Ms. Sinclair: I would say no that is not likely. We would prefer to have the SDM but no I would say that would not stop us from going into that building. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to be open on Sunday, naturally? Ms. Sinclair: Naturally. Mr. Alanskas: Until what time? Ms. Sinclair: The hours are from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any plans at this time in regards to signage? Ms. Sinclair: Once again, that will be something our Construction and Real Estate Department will work on in conjunction with the City of Livonia. I know all the building permits have been approved by the City. This waiver was for the SDM license, which is why I am here now and not a Construction Manager. I would guess that yes building signage drawings have already been submitted and I am going to guess approved. I could get back with you on that. Mr. Alanskas: Do you know if it is going to be on the face of the building only? Ms. Sinclair: We always put our cutout backlit letter that says Arbor Drugs on the facia of the building and normally there is a type of pylon *ft" sign or a sign that goes with the center. A lot of times you have whatever the anchor tenant is, like Farmer Jack, and then you have an added sign underneath it. I don't know what the existing signage looks like but I would guess we would put new signage up, definitely on the building and if not, in that center. Mr. Alanskas: Your landscaping going into that center, will that be irrigated? Ms. Sinclair: I am not aware whether it will be irrigated or not. I would assume, again we do landscape our storefront. As far as the whole center goes, when we go into a lease agreement normally those sort of issues are discussed because we don't want to put our store in and project an image that doesn't fit ours. Mr. Alanskas: It says existing planters only so it most likely would not be irrigated. Mr. Engebretson: What is the term of your lease? Ms. Sinclair: For 20 years, and that is the initial portion of the lease and then. we have the rights to extend that lease for three additional five-year periods. 12971 Mr. Engebretson: That is the reason for the commitment to making certain improvements to the building. Regarding those improvements, would the building enhancements be confined to your section of that major building there? For example, the building site plan shows your — area plus Lease Space A and Lease Space B abutting the Farmer Jack operation. Is that the area the enhancement will be confined to or is the whole shopping center going to be overhauled? Ms. Sinclair: I want to answer this as honestly as I can at this point. I would assume the front of the whole shopping center would be renovated in consistency with our building facia but I couldn't guarantee you that. I do not know. Mr. Engebretson: All you are guaranteeing then is what we see on this site plan, which I am sure will take in not only your space but the other lease spaces. Apparently it does not include the truck wells to the rear of the building. It may or not may. Ms. Sinclair: It may or may not include that and I am not sure about Farmer Jack or any of the other major tenants. Mr. Engebretson: It will be a great enhancement just to get your particular section renovated. Ms. Sinclair: Again, I am sure the landlord had to make a few concessions. When you negotiate a lease there is a little give and a little take. We will contribute this much and what are you going to do? Again, we don't want to project a good, clean, fresh, new image and then have the major tenant next door look shabby. Skew Mr. Shane: I can add to that. As a matter of fact today we received a site plan request by Farmer Jack to renovate their building as well. It will be a mere image of this building and does include work on the truck well. The truck well does belong to Farmer Jack. As far as we know that is where it is going to stop at this point in time, this petition and Farmer Jack. That takes up a little over half of the shopping center. Mr. Engebretson: That is a good start. The only other question I have is the reference you made to the repair of the parking lot. What section of the parking lot are you referring to? Ms. Sinclair: I can assure you the area in front of our storefront and probably an ample number of spaces. The LCC requires so many parking spaces per square footage etc. so that should cover that entire area for their requirement. Again, I want to say I would think at this time the landlord is going to make every effort to renovate the shopping center to conform to meeting our criteria. I can't guarantee you they will do the entire parking area but I imagine a good portion of it will be done. I could get back with you on that. Mr. Engebretson: What I consider a commitment is what I see on the site plan and I think that is really all we should count on. 12972 Mr. Alanskas: On the rendering you are showing a sign that says Liquor/Lotto. Ms. Sinclair: At this time we have been denied a liquor license from the LCC. The quota is full for this area. We will not be pursuing that. ro► The lotto, we actively pursue getting the lotto machine. The sign will not go up. That is just something they put on there with the hopes of obtaining that but we have been denied. Mr. Morrow: I have a two part question. Of all your stores how many do not presently have SDM licenses and should you not be granted a waiver, what type of an impact would that have as a percentage of your operation? Ms. Sinclair: First off, out of 141 locations open and operating, every one of them has an SDM license and only about 65 or half of those locations have a liquor license. Your second question, it accounts for 12% to 15% of our sales. Pharmaceuticals and prescriptions account for about 53%, but 12% to 15% of our sales are alcohol related. Mr. Morrow: I appreciate Arbor Drugs selecting that site for a couple of reasons. One is because that is one of the gateways to Livonia. I think it will enhance the whole area that you see when you come in there. As far as your waiver is concerned, I think it is appropriate that you have it. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-7-2-17 closed. *oar On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #8-159-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 24, 1993 on Petition 93-7-2-17 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a new SDM license for a proposed Arbor Drug Store to be located within an existing shopping center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Angling Road and Grand River Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, such property being zoned C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-7-2-17 be approved subject to the waiving of the 500 foot separation requirement of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council and to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated 7-9-93 prepared by F. Matthew Ray, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the building elevations shown on the approved Site Plan which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the roof-top mechanical units shown on the Site Plan shall be screened from public view. 4) That the petitioner shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of the sign plan when it is developed. for the following reasons: 12973 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-2-18 by the Kroger Co. requesting waiver use approval for a SDD license in conjunction with a Kroger store located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. `ar. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no problems with this proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating their offices have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore their office has no objection to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: This particular proposal is for a liquor license for the Kroger Store. The SDD is for liquor as opposed to the previous petition which was for beer and wine only. Would the petitioner now come forward and give us your reasons for making this request. Jerry Moraton: I represent the Kroger Company. We are requesting this waiver so we can put this SDD license into our existing store to compliment the current offering of food and beverages that we offer to the community. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have an SDM license? Mr. Moraton: Yes we do. 12974 Mr. Alanskas: How many of your stores in the metropolitan area have SDD licenses? Mr. Moraton: I believe ten. `r.. Mr. Alanskas: Out of how many? Mr. Moraton: Out of 68. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your sales, if you had the SDD, would be in liquor? Mr. Moraton: Approximately one percent. Mr. Tent: A question to the petitioner and also to H. How many grocery store chains do we have in Livonia that disburse liquor? I am not talking about little corner pop stores. I am talking about grocery stores. Mr. Shane: I am going to say none but I am not sure I am right. Mr. Tent: The checking I have done I think I came up with the same number. You have a Kroger store at Five Mile Road. That is just as successful a store. They dispense food and they dispense a lot of things in there. Are they considering a liquor license also? If you were successful here, would they automatically go ahead and petition for a liquor license there? Mr. Moraton: Not automatically. What happened in this case, we were approached by someone who had a license available and we felt that this would ;41111. be the location we would prefer between the two. When one is made available, then we do have some interest if we can work out the terms of the agreement. In this case we were not actively searching for this license, but it is part of the offering that we do have in some of our stores in Michigan. It is something that many of our customers do purchase at those locations so therefore when we do have the opportunity, we do pursue it. Mr. Tent: So this is a license that came to you rather than you pursuing it. To follow up on Mr. Alanskas' question, of the ten Kroger stores out of the 68 that sell liquor, where would those ten stores be? Mr. Moraton: There are none in the City of Detroit. I do not have a listing with me. Nothing in Livonia. We have two in Westland, one in Rochester Hills and one in Canton and I can't think of the other locations. Mr. Tent: If you were successful, how would you dispense the liquor? Would it be behind the shelf or across the counter? Mr. Moraton: What we are apparently looking at right now would be to sell it behind the counter in an area where we currently sell our lotto tickets out of, which is near the front. Mr. Tent: There is no thought on your mind of selling it from the shelf where they can come in and pick it up like they do the pop? 12975 Mr. Moraton: No our current plans are to put it behind the shelf. Basically that is what our store managers prefer. Mr. LaPine: This is the third time we have had a request for a SDD license at that location and you have been turned down twice now. Can you tell me what has changed that Kroger thinks we should change our mind and allow a liquor license to go in there? The only change I see is the Baseline Drugs store next door has gone out of business. Beyond that what has changed? Mr. Moraton: We have never applied for a liquor license at this location. Mr. LaPine: I'm sorry it was Great Scott. I guess my position hasn't changed. I don't believe packaged liquor should be sold in grocery stores. That is my honest opinion. I think packaged liquor should be sold from liquor stores like Wine Barrel, Showerman's, stores like that. I just feel that when people go shopping in a grocery store they take their children. It is not, in my opinion, a very good example to see mother and dad buying a fifth of liquor with their kids. If you want to buy liquor fine. You go to a liquor store and not a grocery store. Krogers has been successful in that location and they are going to continue to be successful with or without a liquor license. Unless there is something I don't know that is going to make or break Krogers, I don't see any argument you have given me to allow an SDD license to go there. Mr. Moraton: I have already indicated that it is one percent of our sales, which is a very small amount, but once again it is just to extend the wine and beer that we can offer to the customer. Mr. Tent: Mr. Moraton, the license we are talking about is that a license you are bringing with you from one of your other locations or will that be a new license? Mr. Moraton: It is one in escrow right now. Mr. Tent: Could you share with us whose license? Mr. Moraton: I believe the name of the company is Metrovest. Mr. Tent: I was concerned because Arbor Drugs was here before you and they indicated the liquor license quota was full. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-7-2-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #8-160-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 24, 1993 on Petition 93-7-2-18 by the Kroger Co. requesting waiver use approval for an SDD license in conjunction with a Kroger store located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, such property being zoned C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that — Petition 93-7-2-18 be denied for the following reasons: 12976 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 44543. 2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the location and intensity of the proposed use and its relation to the street giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the normal traffic currently generated by the Northridge Commons Shopping Center and adjacent land uses. 4) That there is no demonstrated need to sell packaged liquor in connection with the principal use carried on within the subject supermarket. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 41543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: As far as this waiver, one of the concerns is always traffic. I travel this Eight Mile area every day and just want to reinforce that until Eight Mile Road is widened, the traffic through there is extremely heavy with people making left hand turns, people jumping in and out of lanes, etc. To further intensify that site at this time would be something I am not in favor of. ,,`, Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-2-19 by Pete Gresock and Ronald Marsonek requesting waiver use approval to operate a collision shop within an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: 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's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their offices have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. This property has split zoning; everything south of the building is zoned RUF. There was a temporary variance granted in 1981 which allowed the industrial use to extend 50' into the RUF portion of this property and also waived the protective wall requirement. That variance lapsed in 1992. Due to the Zoning Board backlog, this item has not yet been scheduled for a rehearing. 2. The parking lot needs to be restriped and signs installed for the 12977 handicap spaces. 3. Several areas of the building need paint. 4. The landscaping needs attention; there is trash and debris and weeds all over the site; and a portion of the fence is overgrown with vines. \r. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Peter Ventura: I am here representing the petitioner this evening. Here with me is the petitioner, Mr. Peter Gresock. Also here this evening is Mr. Jack Arthurs, who is the owner of the building. The petition is pretty self-explanatory. Mr. Gresock owns a collision shop in Farmington Hills. He wishes to move to Livonia at this location and seeks waiver use approval to do so. Mr. Gresock has been in business at his present location for over ten years. It is an established business. He is in a building of approximately the same size so this building is well suited in size for him and he has negotiated preliminary terms with Mr. Arthurs for the lease and eventual purchase of this building so he is making a permanent commitment to the City of Livonia. The petitioner was not aware until receipt of a letter from the Inspection Department that this parcel was split zoned. The petitioner intends and will require that this variance be regranted so he can use a portion of the RUF land to the south of the building for his purposes. The building currently is adequate to house his operation and what is now becoming standard in the industry a down-draft paint room. The petitioner anticipates, however, that in future years he will need to add a second booth and when he does that he will need to expand the building, which will require that he has accomplished a rezoning on a portion of the now zoned RUF land. We would be `r. pleased to answer any questions you might have. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Ventura, we were over checking on your client's operation. Is Farmington Hills Collision the name of his company? Mr. Ventura: Yes. Mr. LaPine: At the rear of your building you had some cars parked in the back. I thought the property was well kept. I had no problems. We were there Saturday. Would you have any of those cars parked here? The problem you have, the 50 feet that you got a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the rear can only be used for parking under the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals. That would be the ideal place for any cars you could not store on the inside but you can't use that. Therefore, the only other place you could store those cars is on the west side of the building and they could be seen from Eight Mile Road. How often do you have those type of cars there and how many would you be able to store within the confines of the building? Mr. Gresock, 21260 Plattsburg, Southfield: Typically the cars are stored from a week to three weeks based on the different insurance companies and their process of closing a claim. Unfortunately a lot of those cars are handicapped. They are not even moved in and out on a regular basis. All vehicles that can be moved are brought in at night for security reasons but typically two and no more than three '�.� weeks at the most. 12978 Mr. LaPine: You said in the future you would like to expand your building into the RUF, which is at the rear. I can assure you the opposition out there for years, the people down in that area are dead opposed to any extension of the commercial property further back than what is there right now so that will be a tough sell for you. The Inspection report talked about the building needing paint. I thought the building was in excellent, immaculate shape. I thought the location was in excellent shape. I guess I have one problem. As you know to the rear there are homes. You have an overhead door in the rear. When you are doing work on cars, will that overhead door be open so the noise will travel. I realize from the site plan we saw that most of the repairs on the automobiles will be at the front of the building, which I think is to your benefit, but will that overhead door be open a lot? I assume in the summertime it will be. Mr. Gresock: In the summertime most definitely because of the heat but other than the summertime there is really no need for the door to be open. Mr. LaPine: What is your normal operating schedule? Five days a week, six days a week? Mr. Gresock: We are currently and have been operating five days a week 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Mr. Alanskas: If you are going to have the doors open in the summertime the noise factor can really be bothersome because that is when the people are out in the summertime enjoying their homes. If you have a car where you have to do a lot of riveting or anything using air guns, there is an immense amount of noise. Mr. Gresock: The front of the building is where we are going to house the body shop. The back of the building will be the paint shop. In the back section you are not dealing with the noise factor. There is no high decibel work being done in the back section. That is basically just a prep and paint area. Mr. Alanskas: Have you possibly thought, the building is so nice, of air conditioning that building on the inside so you wouldn't have that door open? Mr. Gresock: It has crossed my mind. My employees would love it. If we could afford to do it, it would possibly be an option. Mr. Alanskas: It is just that noise factor. I know what kind of noise comes from that type of business. That is a problem. The building is gorgeous. A lot of times you get cars that are really in bad condition from a wreck and then it takes time for someone to come out and estimate the cost so they sit out in front. That concerns me unless you get them to the back of the building. Mr. Gresock: We run a clean operation. We have been there ten years. We do have neighbors behind us and we try to be sensitive to that condition so therefore anything that can come inside, comes in for r.. two reasons. We don't need the vandalism problem. 12979 Mr. Alanskas: Saturday you had one vehicle sitting in the front at your old location. Mr. Gresock: That was a customer's car. He was supposed to pick it up. Mr. Alanskas: How long had that been sitting there? Mr. Gresock: That car came in on Thursday. It is inside the shop. Monday we brought it inside just as soon as he brought us a cash deposit. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have anything as far as overspray or spray going towards the back into the atmosphere? Mr. Gresock: We use state of the art equipment. Everything is filtered through a down-draft booth. We have it maintained by a filter company on a weekly basis. Mr. Alanskas: Is the paint booth always closed when you are painting a vehicle? Mr. Gresock: Yes. It is a closed chamber similar to how they paint them in the factory. Mr. Tent: The thing that concerns me, I am going to follow up on Mr. Alanskas' question on the outside storage. I am concerned that you made a statement the storage would take anywhere from one to three weeks for disabled vehicles and then you indicated you really wanted to get them in as quick as you can because you don't want them vandalized. If it is a total wreck, it could be sitting out there for quite a while because you wouldn't have to worry about it being vandalized. Is there any possibility that you can store these vehicles in the building or make some provision to shield them? Mr. Gresock: We would be willing to shield the vehicles. The problem is if we brought them in the building, first it would take some type of mechanical function to get it in, a tow truck or something. I think shielding them would make more sense. The insurance companies pay you so much a day for those cars sitting so they don't like to see them sit either but sometimes what happens they cannot settle with a client so they sit up to two to three weeks. Typically a claims process takes about a week on a total loss. We would be willing to build some type of a barrier or breakwall to hide the damaged cars. Mr. Tent: That would be to the rear and not the front? Mr. Gresock: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, is that something that is possible with what they submitted? Is that practical? Mr. Shane: I think first of all they are going to have to clarify with the Zoning Board of Appeals the use of that 50 feet. As we indicated the Zoning Board of Appeals put a stipulation on the variance that 12980 it be used for parking only. The property owner is required to go back before the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue that waiver at this point in time. It would be a good time to clarify with the Zoning Board exactly what they meant by parking only. Certainly it is possible to put some type of structure there. If they intend to rezone it or extend the building, they may want to carefully place the structure out of sight. I would think the structure, whatever it is, a wall, should be on the west side of the site, the southwest corner if in fact the Zoning Board of Appeals variance allows that. Otherwise it would have to be forward of that 50 foot area. Mr. Tent: What troubles me on this point, I am considering the resolution that would be made of approval that would be subject to there being no overnight outside storage of disabled vehicles at any time. This is contrary to what we are hearing here at this particular time. If our resolution would contain that, which I would very much like to encompass, I am wondering if the petitioner could adhere to that. Mr. Gresock: There is no way I could make that promise that there would never be a car stored outside at night because that is not feasible in our type of operation. Mr. Tent: What is the maximum number of cars you would have there? Mr. Gresock: Realistic numbers of what might sit on that lot disabled at any given time, I would say no more than 10 vehicles at the max. Typically there are two or three. I don't want to have problems either. I want to come to the City with open arms. Mr. Tent: What if you were restricted to three as the max. Mr. Gresock: I would make it. I would just have to make sure everything came in. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, one other thought occurred to me. The zoning ordinance requires a protective wall between M-1 and residential and that also is subject to waiver before the Zoning Board of Appeals. A greenbelt in lieu of a wall might be a solution somewhere on the RUF site, presumably the rear 50 foot portion there could be installed a greenbelt to help shield that area. Mr. Morrow: A couple of concerns I have with a waiver of this type. I have nothing against collision shops per se. My two concerns are housekeeping and how it affects the residential and I won't belabor that point. I think Mr. Ventura indicated you were surprised about the 50 feet and it might even preclude you from further consideration of this site. Now we have a public hearing and will go forward but is this something you would like to investigate further before you make this commitment because if you are successful with your waiver and try to expand, you may be precluded 12981 from this and you might want to rethink this at least with this knowledge that has come forward tonight. I just want to get your thoughts. I am not pressing you for anything. I just want to bring it up. `. Mr. Gresock: It is definitely a thought but there are other options. Initially we thought it was zoned all the same, which would make things a lot easier, but there are other options within the building. We will have to research that, the placement of the existing booth we have versus where we would put the future site. We might incorporate that within the existing building but it did catch me off guard. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane when you talk about putting up a wall, if I remember right the wall was waived at that location and there is a fence there right now. Mr. Shane: The waiving was only temporary. Mr. LaPine: I understand that but putting up a landscape area back there, in my opinion, wouldn't accomplish anything because there is so much brush and heavy trees there. The residents to the south can't see this building anyways. What I was thinking about is he could take a section, say he wants to store ten cars, he has a long section from Eight Mile Road all the way to the back. He could put a privacy fence across there. My concern is not with seeing the cars from Eight Mile Road. I know you will never be able to park behind the building. Maybe you will. I am assuming that from my experience being on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Except for that I don't really have any big hangups because at the location you have now you have a good operation there and I think it is an operation Noir— that is compatible to that area. If we can work out all those details I would have no big objections. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ventura mentioned in his opening remarks that you would require Zoning Board approval before this would be a suitable proposal for you and apparently that is new news and I don't want to rehatch it but the question I have is if that is not granted, and there is no guarantee it would be, would that prevent you from moving forward at this location? Mr. Gresock: Yes it would. Mr. Engebretson: So it is good that you are aware of it this evening. Regarding future expansion plans to expand that building to the rear, I am very concerned that the proximity of that open door to the existing residential uses in that area is already a problem and I am even more concerned about what would happen if the zoning and the whole process went through and you were able to expand the building to the rear. That is going to meet with immense opposition not only from the community but from the City. I guess I am just wondering how important that is to you because it is important to us that we look out for the interest of those residents. 12982 Mr. Gresock: That would have been the optimum place to go on with the building. I am not sure that is where we would have to expand. Not knowing the difference in the zoning, we would have to rethink that but I don't think it is totally necessary for our operation. We have been this size for several years. We just thought that if that `�. property was zoned the same it would be nice if we had to to go off the back but it is not necessary. Mr. Ventura: Would you have the same concerns and reservations if Mr. Gresock were willing to remove that door from the rear to the west? Mr. Engebretson: I think my concerns would be much less if that were the case because I am not an expert in what goes on in those types of operations but I have been there a few times and there is some really piercing noises that are generated in those facilities by the very nature of what you do, but over and above that I would also be interested in whether or not at your current location you do any work outside the building. Mr. Gresock: No absolutely not. Everything is done inside the building. Mr. Engebretson: If this were to go forward, it would not be a hardship on you if you were restricted from doing that? Mr. Gresock: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the noise factor in that rear section, which you addressed, while the type of work that goes on there itself may not be as piercing as what goes on in other parts of the building, we have found in other locations doing similar kinds of work that one Noir of the largest noise problems are radios tuned to radio stations that play loud music and they are turned up loud. What is your experience at your present location with regard to that kind of issue? Mr. Gresock: Number one, I don't like it myself because it is not very professional. We have customers and the insurance people walking through. We do have one small radio located in the body shop and one towards the back. Although it is not loud, typically you can't hear it because of the work going on so it is not excessive. We also have a policy that nobody is allowed to play the customers' radios in cars. Mr. Engebretson: Whatever radios you have, they are managed?. Mr. Gresock: That is right they are managed. Mr. Engebretson: What will you do if the noise became a problem? Are you prepared to face the tough issues of committing to mitigating that problem if and when it occurs? Mr. Gresock: Naturally we don't want to be a burden. We want to have a good working relationship. We would definitely try to address it. We are thinking now, especially with the zoning the way it is, we 12983 would like to move the door to the side of the building. I think that would help quite a bit. My own experience has been that the back of the shop is much more quieter with the heavier work going on in the front. I don't think it is going to be a problem. 'lour Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate your candid answers. You understand that this is not intended to be adversarial or to give you a difficult time. I think you would be as interested in being a good neighbor there as we are. I would like to pursue that moving of the door issue. How far towards the front of the building would it be located? Mr. Gresock: If and when the addition were to commence, I would like to come off the back like an "L" and possibly locate the second booth in that "L" section so it would be at the back of the building. Mr. Engebretson: Notwithstanding whatever plans you are making for future expansion, taking the building as it is right now, you would just move it around the corner then? Mr. Gresock: That is correct. You should have that on your plan. We proposed a side entrance door at the center of the building. That would be our main door. Mr. Engebretson: At this time we will go the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Jack Arthurs, 30700 Telegraph, Bingham Farms: I am the building owner. I would just like to point out a couple of things how the industrial uses have changed in the last few years. I have owned that building about eight to nine years. I have really had two main tenants over that period of time. The one main tenant was supposedly a fabrication shop, which was light industrial in compliance with its zoning. By the way, they always had their back door open and there was a lot of noise going on there. I wasn't aware there were neighborhood problems from that noise. My second tenant was in there for three and one-half years, ran two shifts and always had the rear door open. That was a big fabrication shop and that was Turner Manufacturing and they built huge part cleaning ovens so they were dealing in sheet metal and doing the heavy hammer work. Some of the prospective tenants that have come by have thrown these things at me: (1) They said you know the property isn't wide enough to bring a semi in and turn it around. Maybe 30 to 40 years ago when they set up the zoning maybe that didn't mean anything. His objection was he was going to bring in a sheet metal shop here in the last couple of months. He said he didn't want three to four trucks a day backing in from Eight Mile Road because that accident on M-59 a year or two ago with Denny McLain's daughter was because of a steel truck backing into a place like ours on Eight Mile Road. When the collision shop came by, I thought sometimes roses grow in alleys. Even though this isn't in compliance with the existing zoning, it might be a good fit for that property and I really think the noise level that would emulate from their operation would be less than any of the businesses that would be under the existing zoning. I just wanted to point that out to you that things do change and that people now have recognized hazards that we didn't recognize before, one of them being backing big trucks in from that main of a road. I just thought I would bring that up to you. 12984 Mr. Tent: Mr. Gresock, several items have been brought up at this meeting, in other words the ZBA, the zoning of the back portion, the relocation of the door, etc. If we were to table this to resolve some of these differences before we went further, would that put any burden *lowon you because you indicated the ZBA was a big surprise, the back 50 feet. If you couldn't get that, it wouldn't be a done deal. That being the case and we talked about some variances with the building and about storing the cars, etc. If we were table this for two weeks or so to pull all these ends together would that cause any hardship. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Tent, if I may answer an appropriate question. Mr. Gresock and Mr. Arthurs are very sincere about pursuing this matter and I don't think tabling this this evening to give us an opportunity to go to the ZBA would be a hardship. We would like to know before we embark on another adventure that this board is generally in favor of what Mr. Gresock wants to do. If you would take a straw vote or whatever you would like to do to communicate to Mr. Gresock that you are in favor of him pursuing this and getting the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals, we would not object to a tabling motion. Mr. Tent: I feel this is a viable proposal. I think it has merit but the questions I brought up, and some of the other Commissioners brought up, are points we would like to have clarified and if those are all put in place I see nothing wrong with utilizing the property the way he intended but if those things weren't put in proper boxes, then I would have a problem. I believe we possibly do have something here that will be workable. I am just being cautious. 'tor Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, can you give us a synopsis as to why the staff opposes this petition? Mr. Shane: I think the staff was concerned about the very things you were concerned about, the noise. The bump shop is generally a heavy manufacturing use and this requires waiver use next to a residential area and the prospect that there will be damaged cars parked outside as they are at the present location and the image we have been trying to work to along Eight Mile Road for years doesn't seem to fit that particular scenario. I think that is basically what Mr. Nagy indicated he was opposed to. Mr. Engebretson: Would you tell me whether or not this type of proposal would have required notice being given to the neighboring residential users? Mr. Shane: Yes. We would have notified all residential property owners within 500 feet. Mr. Engebretson: That is important to know. Mr. McCann: Would there be any problem with us approving this with a restriction on the number of vehicles being parked outside and restriction that they be parked behind the building, which would be the 50 foot requirement right now, so that basically our approval would not have any affect until they got ZBA approval, which would *fto, allow them to park cars back there? 12985 Mr. Shane: If you would put it in such a way that it would be subject to, it would work that way. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-7-2-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #8-161-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 24, 1993 on Petition 93-7-2-19 by Pete Gresock and Ronald Marsonek requesting waiver use approval to operate a collision shop within an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-7-2-19 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 7-30-93 prepared by John W. Arthurs, owner, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the existing parking lot shall be patched and resealed as needed. 3) That there shall be no overnight outside storage of disabled vehicles on the west side of the building and no more than five vehicles shall be parked in the rear of the building at any one time. 4) That there shall be no outside storage of scrap metal, auto parts, auto bodies or such other debris as is created by the subject use. '4441' 5) That there shall be no outside work done on any vehicles at any time. 6) That the parking of damaged vehicles in the rear 50 feet is subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue the use of 50 feet of RUF zoned property. 7) That the petitioner shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of the sign package. 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 Section 16.11 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 44543, as amended. `fir. 12986 Mr. Tent: We said a lot of things here and we made a lot of conditions. Can we enforce all of those? Is this something we have done intelligently enough to give the petitioner some idea of what he is going to have to do and he will have to follow that? Mr. Shane: Yes I think the resolution is proper and can be enforced. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 8:55 p.m. - Mr. Morrow left the meeting at this time. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-8-2-20 by Angelo Mauti requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive repair shop within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: 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's office and the Traffic Now. Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The parking lot is breaking up in places, has large cracks with weeds in them. The entire lot needs to be resurfaced and striped. 2. All landscape areas need to be upgraded. There is no sprinkler system. 3. Fence needs painting. 4. Any new signs will require Control Zone approval. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your reasons for this request. Tony Mauti: I am the petitioner's brother and part owner of the property. We purchased this property in February and we knew upon purchase of it that it was zoned C-2, commercial. We fixed the property up. It took us about two months to fix the property in fairly good condition. If any of you looked at it before we purchased it and after you will see what improvements we have made to the property. We purchased it for the purpose of leasing the property and once we found a possible tenant we found out there was a variance in the zoning required. I thought C-2 meant we could have some kind of a car repair shop in there but apparently we couldn't and we have to have this approval for this variance. I would request we get the variance. 12987 Mr. LaPine: What improvements did you do there? Angelo Mauti, 20154 Riverside: Inside the buildings we have new floors, new ceilings, the walls are new. Our electrical was checked out by an electrician. Mr. LaPine: All internal. Anything on the outside? Angelo Mauti: Yes we painted the wood on the outside and cut down the weeds in the back of the lot. Tony Mauti: We also re-roofed three of the four buildings that needed re-roofing. Angelo Mauti: I got new furnaces, new air conditioners, two hot water tanks. Tony Mauti: We put a lot of money in those buildings. Mr. LaPine: It consists of three buildings, correct? Tony Mauti: Actually there are four. Mr. LaPine: The building to the extreme west side on the corner of Haller Avenue. On your site plan it is marked vacant. What is going to happen to that building? Angelo Mauti: I have no idea. Mr. LaPine: Are your plans to rent that building out? Angelo Mauti: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The middle two buildings is where the car repair is going to be. You have overhead doors on the front and overhead doors on the back so people can come into the front and out the back or in the back and out the front. The area that you have designated office, that seems to be a lot of office for a small operation. Is that all going to be used for office? Scott Papin, 14057 San Jose, Redford Twp. : I can answer any questions. Mr. LaPine: You are going to operate a car repair shop. Is that correct? Mr. Papin: Yes a car repair and a reconditioning shop. Mr. LaPine: Are we talking about motor tuneups? Mr. Papin: Tuneups, brakes, shocks, struts, etc. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have any hydraulic equipment in there? Mr. Papin: Only car lifts. Mr. LaPine: How many? 12988 Mr. Papin: There is one there now in the ground and we will have two on top of the ground. Mr. LaPine: What are your hours of operation? 'irr Mr. Papin The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Saturday we open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 4:00 p.m. Mr. LaPine: Do you have a facility like this now? Mr. Papin: Yes in Garden City. Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be a new operation? Mr. Papin: It will be the same name. Mr. LaPine: To the property owner, what is going to happen to all the other land you own here? Angelo Mauti: Eventually we would like to get it divided. If we divide this now we are going to lose the parking. We are obviously going to have to put in a new parking lot. We don't have any plans now for the land but we would like to do something eventually. Tony Mauti: The reason the land is there obviously we liked the buildings and the buildings and land were all the same price. Mr. LaPine: The existing sign there. What are you proposing to do with that? Are you going to use that sign? Mr. Papin: We could use that for now or we could take it down. Mr. Tent: Mr. Papin, you are the tenant? Mr. Papin: Correct. Mr. Tent: How long of a lease did you sign for this location? Mr. Papin: Five and five. Mr. Tent: Because what we are doing here we are giving a waiver use which means that goes with the property so that could be used forever and ever. My concern was how long you intended to be there. Mr. Papin: It is a five year with five year options. Mr. Tent: In Garden City do you own the building there? Mr. Papin: No I am leasing it. Mr. Tent: How long was your lease arrangement there? Mr. Papin: Five years. Nur 12989 Mr. Tent: You wouldn't be storing any junk cars outside? Mr. Papin: No sir. `► Mr. Tent: So there will be no outside storage. Everything will be internally within the building. Mr. Papin: Yes. Mr. Tent: To the owners of the property. You were talking about landscaping and upgrading. You indicated you have done so much on the inside of the building, which is great, but then we have to look at the outside. How soon will you be putting in the landscaping, etc.? Angelo Mauti: We are waiting to see what goes on with the inside. I pulled the bushes out. I pulled the weeds out. There is really not much sod. It is all weeds. Mr. Tent: Would you have any problem, if this petition were approved, that you submit a landscape plan within 30 days of this resolution indicating how you are going to go ahead and accomplish this and then go ahead and do that before you get your Certificate of Occupancy. In other words, if I were to vote on this I would say not six months or six years, I would want to see it now. Angelo Mauti: Definitely yes if this was okay. Mr. Tent: I am concerned about the parking lot, etc. Nm. Tony Mauti: The landscaping is going to help his business. The parking lot is going to be asphalted. If this were approved, it would not be a problem getting a landscape plan. Our first priority were the buildings for obvious reasons because they needed the most repairs. Mr. Tent: Do you have any other operations in the City of Livonia? Tony Mauti: No. Mr. Tent: You are local? Tony Mauti: Yes. Mr. Tent: This is your first venture in this type of operation? Tony Mauti: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Papin, how many working bays do you have at your present location? Mr. Papin: I have three. Mr. Alanskas: Do you work outside in the summertime? Mr. Papin: No. 12990 Mr. Alanskas: I am very involved with a lot of service centers in the metropolitan area and 98% in the summertime they work on cars on the outside. Mr. Papin: I wouldn't try to do that. Mr. Alanskas: Do you do oil changes. Mr. Papin: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: What do you do with the old oil? Mr. Papin: The oil is stored in a secure oil foundation that is pumped out once it is filled. It has retainers for no spillage. We try to watch that real tight. Mr. Alanskas: What size container do you have? Mr. Papin: It is a 250 gallon. Mr. Alanskas: It is drained how often? Mr. Papin: Once a month. Mr. LaPine: I don't see anything on the site plan. Where is the dumpster? Will you have a dumpster at this location? Mr. Papin: Yes there is one there now. It is behind the bay area in the back. Mr. LaPine: How often would you have pickup? Mr. Papin: Once a week. Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Tent. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to make a motion to table this item for two weeks to allow time to prepare a more detailed documentation of what exactly is being proposed here. I don't want you to read into this any opposition to what you are planning to do. I just want to make sure we understand exactly what it is we are doing. The plan doesn't really specify any of the issues that we discussed relative to landscaping, parking lots and I presume we are talking about just the one building as far as the waiver use but I am really not sure about that either. I know that the staff helped you with this plan and were willing to work with you but I personally think we need a clearer definition of the proposal, and assuming we can clarify all those issues, then I am prepared to support the waiver use. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-8-2-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was `m. 12991 #8-162-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 24, 1993 on Petition 93-8-2-20 by Angelo Mauti requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive repair shop within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller slaw Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 93-8-2-20 until the study meeting of August 31, 1993. 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-7-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master Fire Station Plan, so as to delete an existing proposed fire station site and designate a new location. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, is there any correspondence on this item? Mr. Shane: No correspondence. Mr. Engebretson: H, I believe I can characterize this as a housekeeping procedure *,`, to modify the Master Plan to correspond with action already taken to relocate the new proposed fire station. Mr. Shane: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner we will go 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 93-7-7-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-163-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public hearing on August 24, 1993 for the purpose of amending Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Fire Station Plan, the same is hereby amended so as to delete a site located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in the West 1/2 of Section 5, such property being legally described as follows: That part of the S.W. 1/4 of Section 5 described as beginning at the south 1/4 corner of Section 5 and proceeding thence north 89° 14' 30" west along the south section line 292.46 feet; thence north 0° 14' east 411.0 feet; thence south 89° 14' 30" east 292.46 feet; thence south 0° 14' west along the north and south 1/4 section line 411.0 feet to the point of beginning, 2.76 acres. 12992 and to designate a new location located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in the West 1/2 of Section 5, such property being legally described as follows: ``. That part of the south 1/2 of Section 5, T.1S. , R.9E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, described as beginning at a point distant N. 0° 14' 0" East, 60 feet and N. 89° 14' 30" West, 43 feet from the south 1/4 corner of Section 5; proceeding thence N. 0° 14' 0" East 336 feet; thence south 89° 14' 30" East, 208 feet; thence south 06 14' 0" West, 336 feet; thence N. 89° 14' 30" West, 208 feet to the point of beginning. (Part of 020-99-0002-000 and 019-99-0023-001). for the following reason: 1) That the proposed new location of the proposed Fire Station site will provide for a more strategically located facility with respect to providing a safer means of ingress and egress to and from the site. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Fire Station Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all amendments therto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-2-11 by Dewain A. Diacono requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair and bump shop facility in an existing building located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and the C&O Railroad right-of-way in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-164-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-5-2-11 by Dewain A. Diacono requsting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair and bump shop facility in an existing building located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and the C&0 Railroad right-of-way in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12993 Mr. Engebretson: This was tabled several weeks ago to allow the petitioner time to plan a paint proposal. Would the petitioner please come and tell us what you have done with your paint proposal. fir. Dewain Diacono: I am representing Accurate Collision. A few changes have been made on the print. We are showing scrap part storage on the northwest corner of the lot, which would be cleaned up anywhere from two to three weeks. We are using the west end of the lot for damaged vehicles. We are also showing the Merriman entrance with a 7% grade at 100 feet. We are also showing a 3' x 8' backlit sign on the face of the building and also the exterior colors, beige being the major portion with red, blue and coral accents. Those were the major changes since it was tabled. Mr. Alanskas: Is this the actual color as far as the beige? It is a very light beige. Mr. Diacono: Those are the exact colors. We changed it from the last meeting on Tuesday. Mr. Alanskas: That is a very nice change. Mr. Engebretson: It is a significant improvement. This is a very greatly improved proposal and I appreciate your cooperation. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-165-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 22, 1993 on Petition 93-5-2-11 by Dewain A. Diacono requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair and bump shop facility in an existing building located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and the C&O Railroad right-of-way in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-5-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 8-23-93, as revised, prepared for Accurate Collision, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 8-23-93 prepared for Accurate Collision, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the parking lot shall be repaired as needed. 4) That the temporary storage of scrap auto parts shall be confined to the area as illustrated on the approved site plan labeled "scrap parts storage". 5) That any damaged vehicles parked on the site shall be confined to the five (5) parking spaces located at the rear of the subject site as indicated by note number 12 on the approved site plan. 6) That the subject building shall be painted as depicted on a color `. rendering submitted by the petitioner. 12994 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in ',` Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject property 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: I would like to take this opportunity to commend this petitioner for his cooperative spirit and attitude as we have worked our way through this. It has been a real pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of success in this venture. Mr. Diacono: Thank you. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 668th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on July 27, 1993. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-166-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 668th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on July 27, 1993 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 669th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 24, 1993 was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION W:#""e- Raymon W. Tent, Ac �ing Secretary i ATTEST: I iii 44 .! A - Jac Engebreson, C airman jg