Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-02-23 12703 MINUTES OF THE 659th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Nair On Tuesday, February 23, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 659th 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 James C. McCann Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Scott Miller, Planning 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-52 by Pro-Motion Marine, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display and storage of boats on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at a public hearing in mid-January due to some misunderstanding as to exactly what the lease arrangements were. We need a motion to remove that from the table even though we may not be doing anything with it. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was 1#2-43-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-12-2-52 by Pro-Motion Marine, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display and storage of boats on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12704 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would ask you to bring us up to speed as to what is going on. I notice that the petitioner has requested that we leave this on the table for further refinement of the proposal. Mr. Nagy: That is correct and I notice that the petitioner has come up to the 'Nor podium so rather than me trying to put words in his mouth it may he better that you hear directly from him so I don't miss any of his intent in my interpretation of it. David Ratcliffe, 1138 Livingston Road, Highland: At this point in time I guess what is going to be needed by my company and what has been agreed to by the owner of the building is to have an appropriate amount of space in the back of the building. At this point I agreed to about 50 feet of width from the back of the building to the back fence line and at that point right now that is what I agreed to go with and I think that is part of my original request. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, are you referring to the area directly behind your space but not extending down to the westerly property line that you are presently using? Mr. Ratcliffe: No I think that is going to be a whole different subject. At this point we are just. going to forego that. I have something else in mind. We will have to bring that up at a later date on a different application. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is the way we serve this petitioner best to retable the item and then do we come back with a redefinition of the proposal and a new public hearing or do we withdraw this petition and start from scratch? Which is the best procedural way to handle this? Mr. Nagy: The answer to your question is really going to come down to what the applicant works out with his landlord. If the subject area remains the same, and that is as he described the 50 feet directly behind the portion of the actual building that he is leasing, if that is all it contains, then you can remove it from the table and deal with it as is. If he should expand an area either to the east or west, then we will have to readvertise to incorporate an expanded area so as to give proper. notice. So it is really going to come down to what the applicant actually comes back to us with and then we will in turn advise the Commission and we will let you know what the appropriate course of action is at that time. Mr. Engebretson: So for tonight, if. I understand you correctly, we should leave it on the table. Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Tent: To the petitioner, the original petition was to store your boats in the front. Have you decided not to do that? Mr. Ratcliffe: I would still like to do that but that is not going to work out so I guess that part of the request we are just going to forego. I am 12705 still requesting the right of usage for the back portion of the building for use of storage of the boats for repair and new product. fir- Mr. Tent: My second question would he if you were successful in getting the back section there for storage, would that prevent the adjacent building from driving trucks around there to get to their location or would you lock them up? In other words, if you had the back section of the area for parking boats, there is no more accessibility then to the adjacent property on the west? Mr. Ratcliffe: Yes there is access during my open hours but the hours that my company is closed the gates would be locked for security reasons. But yes for trucks to come around for deliveries, there is going to be an in gate and an out gate, which generally would be clear for that access. With the way the yard is laid out, a truck could get through there with no problem to make deliveries with either tenant. The yard is plenty big enough. Mr. Alanskas: What kind of lease do you have with the owner there right now? Mr. Ratcliffe: Pending what we work out, right now it is month-to-month. Mr. Alanskas: You say the gates would be locked when you close? What time do you close? Mr. Ratcliffe: The general hours of business right now are 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and on Saturdays and Sundays in the on season I am open from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: Other firms there that are open until nine or ten o'clock at night and had to have those back gates open, if you had them locked this would be a difficult situation. Mr. Ratcliffe: Generally most deliveries, as far as I know, are made during daylight hours. Mr. Alanskas: You said you wanted to have storage of boats and repair of boats in the back. Is that true? Mr. Ratcliffe: The yard is intended for use when someone brings their boat in for service. I have to have a place to put it. I may not he able to get to it right away and when my new boats come in, of course, I have to have a place to put them too. Mr. Alanskas: You wouldn't he doing anything like sanding back there? Mr. Ratcliffe: No all the work I do is inside the building. Mr. Alanskas: it is mainly just for the storage of boats? Mr. Ratcliffe: Yes, no work is done in the yard. Mr. Engebretson: If there is no further discussion, then I think we need a motion to table this until we receive additional information. 12706 Mr. Tent: I have just one question. Do you think the landlord here could add anything to it? He seems to be the key point here. They are negotiating a lease. Is he willing to come forth and say he is going to work something out? '411161.. Mr. Engebretson: I think that is going to take care of itself Mr. Tent when we deal with the next item. I think what is left to work out legally in terms of any kind of a lease with this tenant, I suspect all of those things have been worked out between them but I don't think we need to get into that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #i2-44-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 12, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-52 by Pro-Motion Marine, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display and storage of boats on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-12-2-52 to a date uncertain. 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 93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license at a proposed market to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Engebretson: This item was also tabled at a previous meeting. We need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #2-45-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license at a proposed market to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there anything new on this petition? Mr. Nagy: We do have some new correspondence that I would like to apprise the Planning Commission of. It is addressed to myself although it is referencing the Chimento waiver use petition. "This letter shall hopefully alleviate any concerns that the Planning Commissioners may have concerning the petitioners request for a Waiver Use for an SDM License so that they can open their Italian specialty food market." This is from the Plymouth Farms Associates, the landlords 12707 of the subject property. "We would agree, as Landlord of the subject property, to insert a clause in our Lease that the Tenant, the Chimentos, will be required, under the terms and conditions of the Lease, not to allow any loading or unloading of trucks in the front of the building. Plymouth Farms would agree to enter into an irmy— agreement with the City of Livonia, to vacate the Waiver Use of the SDM License upon the termination of the Lease or closing of the business of the Chimento's at the subject premises. Upon the approval of the Chimento's request for a Waiver Use approval for an SDM License, Plymouth Farms Associates agrees to terminate the month-to-month Lease with Promotion Marine if the City of Livonia does not grant Promotion Marine a Special Use or Waiver Use for their business satisfactory to the City. I sincerely hope that this letter answers any questions you may have, which were brought up at the study meeting. As you know, the space that the Chimentos are leasing has been vacant for over two (2) years and with the real estate and business climate being quite difficult, we really need the City's help to make a lease on this facility. We look forward to receiving a favorable approval from the Planning Commission so that we will be able to lease our building to the Chimentos who we feel would make a very good tenant for us and be an asset to the City of Livonia." It is signed by David G. Miles, the landlord. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, having had the opportunity to study that letter, would it be your impression that those commitments are enforceable from the standpoint of protecting the interest we have in making safe turnarounds of various vehicles, particularly tractor trailers that would be making deliveries there? \ow Mr. Nagy: Entered into the record, I believe you could rely on it. Mr. Engebretson: We also had asked Mr. Shane, in your absence, to inquire of our Legal Department as to whether or not the waiver rather than running with the land, is it possible that a waiver can run with a tenant? I know I have heard that letter that they would abandon the waiver use, does that amount to the same thing? Mr. Nagy: Yes, you have to rely on the good faith of the petitioner, in this case his letter of commitment to terminate it. Our ordinance is specifically clear that the waiver use does run with the land and not with the applicant. Mr. Engebretson: We understood that. We were just wondering if there was some way that there would be ways to gain some protection that if for whatever reason this petition were successful and if for subsequent reasons the Chimentos decided to give that space up, that there would be some way to assure that we wouldn't have a waiver there that would be undesirable under other circumstances that may be desirable or acceptable with them. Mr. Nagy: The answer is that a strict interpretation of our ordinance would he that no, we cannot approve it exclusively for the Chimentos. It is a land use decision and therefore it runs with the land. We could rely, I think, on the good faith of the landlord's letter entered into the record indicating that it is his intent to terminate the use upon the tenant's agreement. 12708 Mr. Alanskas: Do you intend, Mr. Chimento, in regards to when you move into this building, I believe it is bigger than what you have now? Mr. Chimento: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any plans to increase the volume of your wine displays? Mr. Chimento: Not really because what I will increase is displays that I have in the store now like pasta, etc. There are so many things that I can't handle. As far as the wines, I have the ones that I want now. I can't say it will be any larger than what it is. Mr. Alanskas: You are not putting in any larger inventories of wine. You want to keep it at the percentage you have now. Mainly it will be selling your products, your meat counter, your olive oils, etc. Wine will he your smallest item? Mr. Chimento: Wine would be my smallest. Olive oils and the pastas and all items in my line of ethnic group, that will be expanded more. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have hopes that if you could come out to Livonia that the customers you have now would also come out here and visit your store? Mr. Chimento: Yes but I would also look for more. T don't want to be narrow minded with just what I have now. I want more people. Mr. Alanskas: You are changing the name of your company. How will they know that you are out there if you change the name of the company? Mr. Chimento: They will know by word of mouth. I have built a reputation over many years. Mr. Alanskas: At the present time there is a large side door on the west of the building. Is that where you are going to have your deliveries and not on the back of the building? Mr. Chimento: As of now yes. There is a roll-up door on the side of the building. I would have to use that now. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have plans on putting a larger door on the back side of the building? Mr. Chimento: Tf I could. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would like to ask you if the current ordinance dealing with the 500 foot separation between SDM licenses, if that ordinance was developed on your watch here? Can you give us some insight as to what the thinking was regarding that 500 foot separation and the manner in which the 500 foot separation can be waived and what the logic was behind all of that? 12709 Mr. Nagy: There is a little bit of history. The City first created the separation requirement with respect to the SDD licenses, the package liquor. That preceded the SDM regulation. Prior to the mid 70's both SDD's and SDM's were permitted by right within the `. Livonia Zoning Ordinance. When it was learned that the SDD was allocated on the basis of population, in other words there was one license issued for every 3,000 population, it became a concern of the City to have those adequately located throughout the City of Livonia, so the waiver use application of taking it out of the permitted use and henceforth making it a waiver use subject to adherence to certain special standards was first applied to the SDD licenses. So the City learned and had experience with the application of the SDD and those standards and felt comfortable with that and then from there would extend it at a subsequent date, some years thereafter. I think 1983 was the year the SDM's were made subject to the waiver use. SDM's, unlike SDD's, are not allocated by population. There is an unlimited number. Whatever the City feels appropriate, is what is issued. So it was based upon the experience the City first had with the SDD's and I think therefore they extended it to the SDM's in terms of requiring special care, special attention to see that it really promoted the City's best interest and the public's best interest in the application of the use of the property. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. I was wondering if in the process of developing that ordinance was there something inherently troublesome about the 500 foot separation regarding the SDM's from any particular angle? Mr. Nagy: I wish you would have given me a little forewarning, but I am relying on my memory and I am pretty comfortable with saying that I think if you actually looked, the Planning Department recommended against the adoption of that ordinance. I think from a planning standpoint the Planning Department opposed taking the SDM's and making them subject to waiver use approval. I think the Commission felt there wasn't that necessity for that special use. I think it was at the City Council's request that this requirement came about. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I certainly wasn't trying to ambush you. I depend on your photgraphic memory, your total recall of everything that ever happened in your 25 years here. Thank you very much for your insight. Mr. Chimento, anything to add? If not, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #/2-46-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license at a proposed market to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-1-2-3 be approved subject to the waiving of the 500 foot separation requirement by the City Council and to the following additional conditions: 12710 1) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P-2 dated 1-11-93 prepared by Guido Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That no loading or unloading of delivery vehicles shall take place `" r in the front of the subject building and the area to the rear of the building shall be open to access for service and delivery vehicles at all times, as referenced in the letter dated February 17, 1993 from Plymouth Farms Associates and signed by David G. Miles. for the following reasons: 1 ) That the subject use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11 .03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance as modified by the City Council. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance //543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make one comment. I opposed this petition last time at the public hearing principally because of the concern I had '44m. relative to the access to the rear and the side of the building, all of which has been taken care of. I don't want to be insensitive to the points that were made by the owners of the deli next door. However, after studying all aspects and visiting your existing store, it is my impression that this proposed use will be an asset to the community and, in fact, be helpful to the neighbor next door. I think you will be able to co-exist there very nicely so I am going to support the proposal this time around. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine, Morrow ABSENT: Fandrei, Gniewek 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 Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Munger Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 14. 12711 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 1,2-47-93 RESOLVED that, the Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Munger Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This was a public hearing item that was tabled because we couldn't resolve it with a majority vote at our public hearing. The staff notes indicate that there is no new information. I would just like to verify that is still true at this point in time. Mr. Nagy: That is true. We have nothing to add. There have been no revisions made to the plat. All the circumstances and issues remain the same as they were at your public hearing. Mr. Morrow: It was brought up at the last meeting about part of the plat being subject to possibly wetlands. Who makes that determination that if the wetlands do exist, that they are honored? Mr. Nagy: It is incumbent upon the proprietor to have their engineers check their property for the determination of wetlands. If there are wetlands on the property and they have investigated it and used their own wetland expert to verify that then it is duly noted on the plan that the area has some wetland area. To that extent they either have to, if they are going to disturb it or alter that wetland in any way, then they have to first get DNR approval for a mitigation plan. In the instance case, while they recognize the wetland area, they are not going to disturb it. They have duly noted it and they intend to build outside the wetland areas. Before they ever get that plat recorded, DNR will, in fact, be involved in that review and confirmation. Mr. Morrow: Then DNR will review that plat. Mr. Nagy: As the plan is drawn they determine and we concur there is no reason for them to alter the wetland areas. Mr. Morrow: Even though they are part of the plat? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: If there are no further comments or questions, then a motion will he in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was 112-48-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 9, 1993 on the Preliminary Plat for Willow Creek Subdivision proposed to 12712 be located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Munger Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Willow Creek Subdivision be approved subject to the submittal of a landscape plan for the required greenbelt easement over 'outs. the north 30 feet of Lot 14 and a plan for a subdivision entrance marker to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to the approval of a Final Plat for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all of the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That no City department has objected to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. 3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to the development of the subject land. FURTHER RESOLVFT) that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Tent: I support this petition. I think it is being done in good faith. I liken this to our successful development of Nottingham Woods. Nottingham Woods has no sidewalks. It has a 50 foot street. It has been there since the 1960's. It has been a successful subdivision. There are 93 homes in there. The people have been '— happy. It has been a keystone for Livonia to show how we could expand within our own community by having some bigger property where people won't have to move out of our City in order to locate here in Livonia. It has been a very successful development. Now we have a developer who wants to come in and do the same thing again in the general area, and for us to go ahead and deprive him of developing that because we want sidewalks and things of that kind. I can point to all kinds of subdivisions throughout the City that have large size lots. They don't have sidewalks. I feel we are doing something to enhance our City and continue on with the finalizing of Livonia, and for this developer to come forth and bring in this plan with 1/2 acre lots without the sidewalks and with the 50 foot streets, I am real happy and if we don't accept it here, I hope the wisdom of the Council will see this because I am sure it should go on to them and they will probably approve it. Mr. McCann: I have a problem because I really feel we need sidewalks. If you have children, you have a dangerous area. This is an unique situation. Number one, we are talking about rural urban farm, large lots in an area that is unique. They tried to come in with different types of zoning. It didn't work out so they are trying to do it under the rural urban farm zoning. To do that they need a 50 foot easement, which does cut down the ability to put in 12713 sidewalks. I talked to one of the developers and they said they were still going to try with the 50 foot easement to put in sidewalks if they could. I have a problem not putting in sidewalks but in this case there is only going to he 24 lots. There is going to be only one entrance. There is not going to be any thru `"' traffic. In this situation with such large lots, I think I will vote for it but to me it is a unique situation. I think normally we do need the sidewalks. Mr. Alanskas: I don't want to belabor the point in regards to this petition but the reason I cannot support it is because of the fact 30 years ago when you didn't have sidewalks you had roller skates but now you have skateboards, you have these rollerblades, and these kids cannot use these things on the grass. Likewise, in this kind of weather, they can't go down the sidewalk to get to their bus to go to school. They have to walk in the street. You have the safety factor and I think it is very dangerous and that is the only reason I think there should be sidewalks in this subdivision. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, in the past four to five years, again looking at your ability for total recall, that is about the amount of time I have been here, about five years, and frankly I don't recall any subdivisions being approved without sidewalks other than a condo development that sidewalks were part of it and then they weren't part of it. I just don't recall any subdivisions that we have approved without sidewalks. Do you? Mr. Nagy: Within your tenure I can't recall any, other than Camborne. Maybe you weren't on the Commission then. Soft. Mr. Engebretson: Say within the last five years. I am kind of looking at the modern era. That is what I am trying to use as a point of reference. Mr. Nagy: Roskelly's two subdivisions on Hubbard Avenue between Five and Six Mile Roads. There are two court-like subdivisions that, again, do not have sidewalks. They are full 1/2 acre lots. Mrs. Veri's own subdivision, I believe it might have been her first subdivision in Livonia, Tiffany Square, does not have sidewalks. If this subdivision had full 100 foot wide lots, by application of the ordinance, it would not be required to have sidewalks. Where there is a problem is that while the lots are full 1/2 acre, they are not 100 feet at the building line, hence there is a requirement for the sidewalk but had they been 100 foot in width at the building line and also the 1/2 acre, there would have been full exemption of those sidewalks. So there are examples, and one of the inducements the City had to encourage larger lot development was the omission of sidewalks. Mr. Engebretson: I happen to agree with Mr. Alanskas that putting children in the streets to play is just a bad idea and I don't care if the lots are 100 feet wide or 200 feet wide. 12714 Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment on what Mr. Nagy said, which is very true, about the larger size lots. We haven't approved that many 1/2 acre developments within the City but those that we have, we have taken that into consideration. I certainly hope that my fellow Commissioners recognize that this is an exceptional deal. It is not the rule of thumb and if this gentleman would have gone ahead and had 100 foot frontage, this question wouldn't even have come before us now. We are not talking about a lot of lots. We are not talking about that much traffic in the area. I would certainly hope, again, that my fellow Commissioners would support this. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei, Gniewek 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 Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 11810-92, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, should be rezoned from C-1 to OS. Mr. Engebretson: This, as you heard, was a proposal to set a public hearing, which Mr. Tent has described. I will look for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 112-49-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 11810-92, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance 11543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to OS; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing he given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance 11543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. 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 Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 11930-92, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain property located in the Dohany Subdivision, south of Seven Mile Road and west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 should be rezoned from RUF to R-l . 12715 Mr. Engebretson: Like the item before, we are looking to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was `44m. 112-50-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 11930-92, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance 11543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located in the Dohany Subdivision, south of Seven Mile Road and west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-l; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance 11543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. 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 Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 11970-92, to hold a public hearing on the question of converting Fox Road, located north of Six Mile Road, from a private road to a public street. Mr. Engebretson: This is another proposal for a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was `r. 112-51-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council Resolution 11970-92, and pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to designate Fox Road (a private road), located north of Six Mile Road, as a Local Street. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Fandrei, Gniewek Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the 658th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 9, 1993. "1r0► On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was 12716 #2-52-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 658th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 9, 1993 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: "ft. AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: Fandrei, Gniewek 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 Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Signs, on behalf of Bakers Square Restaurant & Pies, requesting approval for two wall signs on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook in Section 2. Mr. Miller: This is the Bakers Square Restaurant that is located on the Livonia Mall property. They were before you recently and were approved for one wall sign on the south elevation, the one that faces Seven Mile Road. At that time they told you they would like additional signage but because they like to open with a sign and because of the ZBA scheduling problems, they were going to go ahead with the one sign and then come back later with additional signage. They are back and they are requesting two additional wall signs. Both are at 60 square feet. One would be located on the east elevation and one would be located on the west elevation. Because they are only allowed one wall sign and they need two additional signs, they Nr will have to go to ZBA to be granted a variance. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was ;;2-53-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Signs, on behalf of Bakers Square Restaurant & Pies, requesting approval for two wall signs on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook in Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That sheet 2 and 3 of the Sign Plan dated 1/8/93, submitted by Federal Sign, for the Bakers Square Restaurant at 29622 Seven Mile Road, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 Sign Permit Application by Apex Sign Group, on behalf of Sterling Bank & Trust, requesting approval for one wall sign and to utilize an existing ground sign on property located at 37124 Six Mile Road in Section 8. 12717 Mr. Miller: This is a request for one wall sign and the utilization of an existing ground sign. Sterling Bank & Trust is located in Laurel Commons Shopping Center. They would like to have a unit that is 20 feet long and they are allowed a 20 square foot wall sign, which they are requesting, which is conforming with the sign ordinance. `le . They are also requesting to use the Laurel Commons ground sign and to put Sterling Commons with the logo of the bank, the eagle head, on that. It is a non-conforming sign because it is 25 feet high and 91 square feet. They are only allowed a 40 square foot sign. A non-conforming sign, even though it is either grandfathered in or at the time it was approved it was conforming, now it is non-conforming and you can only do regular maintenance to the sign. You cannot reface it. They are asking to reface it so they would have to go to the ZBA to utilize the existing ground sign. Ann Marie Redoutey: I am with Sterling Bank & Trust. Our site location is at 37124 Six Mile Road. What we are proposing, and again there are two issues being presented before the committee. The first is the sign that is over our suite, which I don't think is in question. The changes we are proposing are to the pylon sign that identifies the center. What we are proposing is a sign that is titled Sterling Commons. Mr. Alanskas: What colors are we going to have for the Sterling Commons as far as that eagle? Ms. Redoutey: They are being proposed as an all black sign and the lighting affect will be a halo lighting, which is illuminated from behind so that the letters will appear black at night as well. fir. Mr. Alanskas: All black with a white background? Ms. Redoutey: Right. Mr. Alanskas: This will be illuminated what hours? Mike Welsey: I represent Apex Signs. It will be illuminated the normal center hours. In other words, on at dusk and off at probably 11:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: Seven days a week? Mr. Welsey: Yes because there are stores in the center that are open seven days a week. Mr. Morrow: I would assume that changing the pylon sign out there, you have the full concurrence of the owners of the center? Ms. Redoutey: Yes, as requested at the last meeting, we did submit the approval within our lease that states that we have such approval from the tenants. Mr. Morrow: For the record that has been accomplished? Ms. Redoutey: Yes. 12718 Mr. Tent: That was the question I had, Mr. Chairman, that we make that part of the resolution that as far as the other tenants were concerned because of the name Sterling they wouldn't all want to go in piggyback on the sign. So this would suffice and Laurel Commons would he no more. It will be strictly Sterling Commons and all the rr`„ restaurants in there and the real estate people, hands off. Mr. Engebretson: I guess I would like to pursue this lease addendum that agrees to reimburse the landlord up to some amount of money to deal with new stationery and advertising, etc. What relief do other tenants that may refer to Laurel Commons on their letterhead and advertising, do they share in this pool of money or is this strictly for the landlord's benefit? Ms. Redoutey: It is my understanding that amount of money was strictly for the landlord. I don't know that there would be any reason for any other tenant to have letterhead in any name other than their own business. If that is the case, it hasn't been brought to our attention. You will notice another item that is addressed within that lease addendum is that we are providing a sum of money for advertising and that is something we realize will affect the tenant. That sum has not been delivered to the landlord simply because we haven't changed the sign so there has been no need to do any advertising. That point has not been brought to the landlord by the other tenants nor has it been brought to our attention by the landlord. Mr. Welsey: The other tenants have been apprised of the name change and there has been no negative reaction. Mr. Engebretson: What evidence of that do you have sir that the other tenants have been apprised of the change of the name of the shopping center from Laurel Commons to Sterling Commons? Mr. Welsey: It was verbally related to me by Mr. Ross and his associates that they did go and talk to every tenant. If you would like a list of the tenants they went to, that can be provided. I thought the addendum issue would suffice. Mr. Engebretson: You had made reference to the fact that the other tenants had been apprised but I guess I would not want to hold this issue up on that particular point but I guess before we approve our minutes I would like some evidence in our file that the other tenants have been apprised and that it doesn't work any particular hardship on them. Madam, you may be correct that they may not include the use of the terminology "Laurel Commons" in any of their letterhead or other types of material but I guess if we were to understand that they had been apprised of this name change, and that there was no objection, then that would put my mind at rest that we would not be working any hardship, nor would you be working any hardship on these businesses. I don't think it is your intent to do that. I think the way in which you have gone about this whole proposal is completely professional and I think maybe I am being a little extra cautious about this particular point but I think you can understand where I am coming from too. Ms. Redoutey: Sure. P719 Mr. Engebretson: If you would supply that to the staff, we would approve these minutes two weeks from tonight so we basically have that much time to deal with that. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, on the same item because this is one of the notations I `Ivry had because I certainly didn't want to have that sign piggyback with a lot of tenant names. Could we make that as part of our resolution that no tenant's name shall be added to the sign and that would safely protect it. Mr. Nagy: You can add it but as you know as a result of our recently adopted sign ordinance, you can't put a tenant's name on a sign. You can certainly add it to your resolution but our ordinance is so designed to prevent that from happening. Mr. Tent: As long as we have a stopgap and as the Chairman added we would have that before the minutes are approved, we could go forth. Mr. Alanskas: Ts the bank open at the present time? Ms. Redoutey: Yes it is. Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been open? Ms. Redoutey: Since December 1st. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to go back to the color for just a moment. I understood that the background was white. It doesn't appear to me to be white. Mr. Welsey: The background color is sort of beige. It is not pure white. The existing sign structure will be repainted so it will be exactly as it is now so. It is a light creamy beige. Mr. Engebretson: So when we finish it is going to look very much like your rendering there and as a sign person you can give us the opinion that it is going to look like it was designed from ground zero to have that particular end result? Mr. Welsey: Yes. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #2-54-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Apex Sign Group, on behalf of Sterling Bank & Trust, requesting approval for one wall sign and to utilize an existing ground sign on property located at 37124 Six Mile Road in Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Plan received 2/23/93 submitted by Apex Sign Group, for the Sterling Bank & Trust and the Business Center Sign at 37100-176 Six Mile Road, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 1''720 2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3) That this approval is subject to the Planning Commission receiving a letter from the shopping center stating the tenants located within the center are aware of the change in the center's name. 4) That the sign shall only be illuminated during the time the shopping center tenants are open for business. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 659th Regular Meeting held on February 23, 1993 was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AG: er-/WiL/: // Raym W. Tent, Ac ing Secretary ATTEST:14 4 4 4 T ck EngeVretson, Chairman `or jg