Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-03-09 12721 721 MINUTES OF THE 660th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Sow On Tuesday, March 9, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 660th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson* R. Lee Morrow Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Morrow: Chairman Jack Engebretson is absent but is expected momentarily so we will begin the meeting. Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-1-28 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #723-92, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Puritan Avenue between Henry Ruff and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from R-1 to RUF. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Morrow: Because this petition comes to the Planning Commission by the City Council, the petitioner tonight is the Planning Commission so we will go directly to the audience to ask if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition. 12722 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-1-28 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 113-55-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 9, 1993 on Petition 92-12-1-28 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution VV723-92, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Puritan Avenue between Henry Ruff and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from R-1 to RUFA, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-1-28 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 district in the area. 2) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding properties in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will eliminate the spot zoning district thereby more appropriately establishing one uniform zoning classification for the neighboring area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: I might indicate that we added the letter "A" making it RUFA, which `., is a change from the original petition, which was RUF. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-1-29 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #723-92, proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Puritan Avenue between Oporto and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, from R-1 to RUF. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: As with the previous petition we have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Morrow: As in the case of the last petition, this comes to us by the City Council. The City Planning Commission is the petitioner. We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-1-29 closed. 12723 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-56-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 9, 141111,` 1993 on Petition 92-12-1-29 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 11723-92, proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Puritan Avenue between Oporto and Middiebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, from R-1 to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-1-29 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 district in the area. 2) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the surrounding zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will eliminate the spot zoning district thereby more appropriately establishing one uniform zoning classification for the neighboring area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-1-2-4 `oar by S & H Food Production, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Hubbell and Milburn Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they would have no objections to the waiver use proposal. However, they note that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60' ) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. This property and the property to the east, 30805 Plymouth Road have not been combined. These two properties are dependent upon each other for common access, parking and traffic circulation. 2. There is no protective wall at the south property line where these properties abut residential zoning. No wall is required along the west property line because those abutting lots are zoned commercial. Mr. LaPine: The two properties have not been combined but they are owned by one individual. Is that correct? 12724 Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: What ratifications are there by it not being combined? Is there any reason why they should be combined because according to this ''or. they have to have access across one parcel to get to the other parcel? Mr. Nagy: Normally when we have a common ownership between two properties, they are legally combined. It is generally a policy of the City to have those properties combined. Mr. LaPine: What would happen in this case, let's assume this gentleman is successful in getting his restaurant and four or five years down the line he goes to the owner and says now I want to to buy this parcel? The only way he can get into the property is through the other parcel. What do they have to do, get some kind of an agreement between them that they will always have access to their property? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, I have a question just to make sure I am understanding what was said. The fact that it is not combined does not preclude us from going forward with this site? Mr. Nagy: That is true. They only described the west portion of the property where the principal structure used for restaurant purposes is situated. That is really the only area. There are two buildings involved on two separate parcels although there is common '41,. ownership. In this case, only one of the properties have been described so your waiver use is only limited to that one portion containing the actual building to be used for restaurant purposes although they do function together, as Mr. LaPine pointed out, in terms of circulation, parking, etc. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please come down and tell us your reasons for this petition. Salem Samaan: I am an attorney out of Plymouth. I represent S & H Food Production. Basically what S & H Food is planning to do is open up a full service restaurant specializing in Mediterranean cuisine. Initially we had submitted floor plans for 34 seats. After talking to Mr. Shane of the Planning Department, we cut that down to 32 because of the ingress and egress into the parking area. What we are looking for right now is hopefully an approval so we may begin the actual remodeling of the structure. The petitioners are planning on doing whatever is required by the City with respect to fire, signage. We do have a proposed lease with the landlord and basically time is of the essence because the landlord is not going to hold the property. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Samaan, according to my notes here the number 32 still has the requirement of two ingresses and two egresses. 12725 Mr. Samaan: If the City feels we have to cut it down to 30, we will go to 30. That is not a problem. Whatever the requirement, we will meet it. Mr. Morrow: Do you have a site plan? Mr. Samaan presented the site plan. Mr. Morrow: What is the landscaping for that particular site? Mr. Samaan: I believe there is some shrubbery that will go around the building and there will be grass on the median. the presented the landscape plan) Mr. Morrow: Do you know what percentage it is? Requirement is 15%. Mr. Samaan: I believe it was. put in in accordance with City requirements so I would imagine it would be at least 15%. Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have a percentage? Mr. Alanskas: Our notes show it is 5.7% for the two parcels. Mr. Nagy: Our analysis is it is 5.7% rather than the required 15%. Mr. Tent: You are representing the petitioner? Mr. Samaan: Yes. Mr. Tent: You haven't signed a lease yet? It is based on this rezoning? `r Mr. Samaan: Yes. Mr. Tent: Do you have any other sites in mind? Mr. Samaan: No. Mr. Tent: Why did you pick this site? It seems so inadequate. I was wondering why you feel it is going to be a success at this location. Mr. Samaan: The location itself is good. It is a freestanding building. The starter cost is feasible. Mr. Tent: When you say starter cost. What will you do to the front of the building. How are you going to improve the looks? Are you just going to paint the awning? What are you going to do? Mr. Samaan: I believe they are going to put an awning on top with the name of the establishment on it. Mr. Tent: Do we have an elevation plan? Mr. Samaan presented an elevation plan. 12726 Mr. Tent: I want to see what it will look like when it is done. I want to see the composition of the building, what the awning will look like. I would like to see an "X" on the seats that are coming out. I want to see a complete package. Mr. Morrow: I guess the question is, is the building going to change and how will it change? Mr. Samaan: Basically it is going to be repainted with a canopy. There will be no structural changes. Mr. Tent: We need at least 15% landscaping. You are really deficient in that. Iiow do you propose to accomplish that? Mr. Samaan: I believe 15% is for both sites. If we need 15%, we will work that out with the landlord. He has agreed to work along with the tenant to get this tenant approved. We have both people working on this now. Mr. LaPine: I am curious about one thing. The plan says you are going to paint the canopy. I don't know how you paint a canopy. I would think after paint is on it for any length of time it is going to peel off. Then you said you are not going to paint the canopy, you are just going to clean it. Mr. Samaan: They are going to paint the name of the establishment on it. Mr. LaPine: So your plans here say "existing canopy to be painted". It is not going to be painted. You are going to paint the name of the 41110. business on the canopy. Mr. Samaan: Whatever is required to make that canopy look attractive. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, can you paint a canopy? Mr. Nagy: Obviously they paint them because they put graphics on them. They put their signs or logos on them. There is an application that you can do, but he is going to be restricted to our sign ordinance if he paints a sign on that canopy, but it is possible to paint them. Mr. LaPine: Normally when these canopies are installed, they are done in the factory and the sign is done at that time. It is professionally done. I am a little leery of what we would be getting. Mr. Nagy: I agree with you. Mr. Alanskas: We have to act on tonight's site plan, which shows 32 seats. That is not in compliance. We have to act on the landscaping, which you are 10% deficient. That is not in compliance. To try to take this and vote on it tonight, it sounds like we may have to table this to a further date because we can't act favorably on this tonight. Mr. Morrow: That is certainly an option Mr. Alanskas. �r.. Mr. Samaan: Could you possibly approve this subject to? 12727 Mr. Morrow: We have some work here tonight before we start figuring that out because we haven't even gotten to the audience yet. `'r►' Mrs. Fandrei: Sir, do you have a landscape plan at all? Mr. Samaan: Just what you see here. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have a sign package? Mr. Samaan: No. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have a rendering of what the building is going to look like when you are finished? Mr. Samaan: No. Mrs. Fandrei: All those things are things we will need. Mr. McCann: To the staff, it appears to me that this building taken by itself would have in excess of the 15% landscaping. It is just because you have to take the other building into consideration with it? Mr. Nagy: The property line goes right along the east wall of the existing building. It is the full depth of that property so even that little bit of green in the front isn't going to cover it. Mr. Morrow: I would assume the staff has appraised someone on this petition of some of our concerns. Apparently they weren't addressed. When you �• mention a new restaurant on that site, I think of air-handling equipment and things like that to comply with the state or city regulation. Is there any planned air-handling equipment or any type of rooftop equipment going on the building? Mr. Samaan: I believe the only thing going on the building is the air conditioning equipment. Mr. Morrow: Is that shown on the plan? Mr. Samaan: No it is not. Mr. Morrow: If it is going to be on top, one of our concerns is the screening of it from public view. That is another area where we have a concern. It appears your plans are incomplete. I am going to go to the audience now. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this waiver use? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-1-2-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 12728 #3-57-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-4 by S & H Food Production, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Hubbell and Milburn Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-1-2-4 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject use is in violation of Section 11.03(1)c of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that ingress and egress be available from a public street by means of at least two (2) separate driveways at least forty (40) feet apart from one another. 3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 4) That the location and size of the proposed use, its nature and intensity, the site layout and its relation to the adjacent building will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the area. 5) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the adjoining uses in the area. 6) That the subject building currently exists as a non-conforming structure because of a deficient front yard setback. 7) That there is no demonstrated need for additional restaurant facilities 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. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-2-2-5 by Joel Messina requesting waiver use approval to construct a car waxing facility addition to an existing car wash located on the southeast corner of Santa Anita and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We °to. 12729 have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating (1) the petitioner has an ongoing problem with vehicles backing up along eastbound Five Mile Road. (2) The loss of 641 sq. ft. would compound the above situation. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found, therefore they have no objection to this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us an idea what you want to do with this waiver of use. Joel Messina: We would like to erect a single car detailing bay. We would like to take these cars in by appointment only. We tried to locate it on the building where we haven't interfered with the line space. We realize we have a small problem there but we don't want to put an addition up that will damage our own selves. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Messina did you bring plans tonight to show the Commission and the audience? Mr. Messina pointed out on the site plan where the addition would be. Mr. Messina: We have added three more parking spaces to the back in the event we would need another employee for the detailing. We have tried to bring the landscaping along the north side as close to the entrance that we could. We tried to bring it 40 feet down Santa Anita. We have tried to bring it 25 feet across the front. 'r.► Mr. Morrow: Do you have a percentage based on this addition? Mr. Shane: The total is 4%. Mr. Morrow: How many parking spaces do we have now for the employees? Mr. Messina: We are going to have a total of six. Mr. Morrow: You have not changed the amount of stacking? Mr. Messina: No. Mr. Tent: Mr. Messina, you are going to revise your building also. Is that correct? Mr. Messina: Correct. We would like to remove the canvas and make that brick and block. Mr. Tent: How long have you been at this location? Mr. Messina: Since 1979. Mr. Tent: The problems they indicated from the Police Department about stacking and traffic, etc. How do you control that? 12730 Mr. Messina: We try to put an attendant out there if there is a problem. There are certain times of the day when it is more apt to happen. We try to keep a handle on watching the clock and what is going on. Mr. Tent: This detailing building that you are putting up, that is probably most active in the summertime? Mr. Messina: That would be a spring and probably fall activity. Mr. Tent: In the wintertime, that wouldn't interfere with your existing operation? Mr. Messina: No. Mr. Tent: To the west side of the parking area, is that where you are going to add parking? Mr. Messina: Yes, three additional spaces. Mr. Morrow: I think in regards to the Traffic Department letter, he does meet the ordinance as it relates to the stacking. He just tends to be a little bit more successful than the ordinance allows. Mr. Alanskas: On your new addition, you would only have one door. How would you get back out? Mr. Messina: They would have to back out. Mr. Alanskas: How would that not be a problem? Mr. Messina: This would be by appointment only. We would usually have the car all day. We would pull that car in and out as the line would diminish or grow. I don't see an urgency to have that car moved right now. Mr. Alanskas: Let's assume the man is there to pick up his car and at that time you have three lines there. How would you get that car out? Mr. Messina: You would have to back it out and go through the car wash. Mrs. Fandrei: He gets a free car wash just after you waxed it! It sounds like you are wanting to overdevelop your property. It sounds like you have a little bit of a problem. Mr. Tent: That is why I wanted to check with Mr. Messina. I can't envision the stackup there in the summertime. I can't picture anyone coming in the wintertime. That is the question I have. If this is going to be an ongoing condition, in weather like we have now, I think it would be a concern. I can't forsee that as being a specific problem at this time of the year. Mr. Morrow: What is the size of the building? Mr. Messina: I believe it is 700 square feet. 12731 Mr. Morrow: We will go to the audience now to see if there is anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-2-2-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was 1#3-58-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 9, 1993 on Petition 93-2-2-5 by Joel Messina requesting waiver use approval to construct a car waxing facility addition to an existing car wash located on the southeast corner of Santa Anita and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-2-2-5 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site & Building Elevation Plan marked sheet SP-1 dated March 4, 1993, as revised, prepared by Clifford N. Wright Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 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 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #f543. 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 #1543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Fandrei, LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-2-2-6 by Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from April 7 through April 18, 1993 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 12732 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. However, special '`r attention should be taken with storage of trailers in the rear of the shopping plaza. An adequate drive shall be provided for arriving apparatus in the event of an emergency. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating for the third consecutive year the site plan does not comply with the City Ordinance and, therefore, their department cannot approve the petitioner's request. We have also received a new letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the revised site plan does comply with the City ordinance and the department has no objections. Mr. Morrow: Is there a representative from the Rotary Club here this evening? Dan DiComo: I am representing the Livonia Rotary Club. My address is 15875 Middlebelt. We also have Gil Walters here from Wade Shows. We are basically asking for the same request that has been brought up here before. This is the fourth year for us. Thankfully with the weather being nice to us the last few years, this has been a major fund raiser for the Livonia Rotary Club. I think many of you are aware of what the club tries to do in the City of Livonia to put all the money we raise back into the community. With the plan that we developed last year so we could avoid any problems with traffic and fire, we resubmitted that very same plan this year and we spoke with those divisions to make sure we were in accordance with what kiew they are expecting. I think we have cleared up most of the questions they had. Mr. Morrow: That would include the trailers, the parking, etc.? Mr. DiComo; Yes. Mr. Tent: I am curious about the traffic letter. The first letter that came was negative and the second one said everything has been complied with and you have indicated you have submitted the same plans for the last three years. Can you tell me how you changed the traffic condition to get the Traffic Bureau to say okay? Mr. DiComo: When we made the initial request this year we did not include the site plan that was included in the previous years so all we had to do was go back and resubmit the plans from the previous year. Mr. LaPine: Do you sell alcoholic beverages at the carnival? Mr. DiComo: No we do not. Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to point out we have had this four years in a row and we have had no problems. I think it is a very nice asset to the City. 12733 Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Henry Binder: I am not against this fund raiser. I want you to clearly `. understand this. However, I live in that section down there. I have worked closely with Edison and I have developed quite an eye for the high power lines going through there on Plymouth Road. My wife and I both commented as we stopped at the traffic light there that big ferris wheel was mighty, mighty close to those high tension wires. I don't know if this is planned again the same way this year. If so I think our Engineering and I think our Inspection Department ought to look at it very closely on that behalf. On the other end, there were really some hair-raising situations there with kids dodging between cars and not crossing at the lights. I don't know if it is going to take a police officer there at the crossing or what. I watched this very closely last year and I think it is worthwhile to look into it. Other than that, good luck with the fund raiser. Mr. Morrow: Mr. DiComo I think you indicated there was a representative from. Wade Shows here. Could you comment on Mr. Binder's comment? Gil Walters, 18841 Saratoga, Lathrup Village: This happens to be one of the first events for the unit and we are under state inspection as soon as we set up. Last year the state inspectors were there. I am not knowledgeable to exactly how close it was to the wires but I am sure they would have seen that. I am sure the Detroit Edison would have noticed that also. I don't know exactly and I can't say but I am sure we will watch that. Mr. Morrow: That is what we are asking, for you to be mindful of that when you set up this year. As far as traffic control I guess it will be up to your show as well as the Rotary to see to it that some of the other concerns are alleviated as it relates to people running across Middlebelt. Mr. Alanskas: If it was close, would it be a problem to move the ferris wheel to a different area? Mr. Walters: They could place it differently. It would be a problem after we set it up. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-2-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was 113-59-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 9, 1993 on Petition 93-2-2-6 by Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from April 7 through April 18, 1993 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12734 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-2-2-6 be approved subject to the following condition: ``. 1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored to the north or rear of the shopping center building but no closer to the east property line than 100 feet. for the following reasons: 1) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #1543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #3-60-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 93-2-2-6 by Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from April 7 through April 18, 1993 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-1-2-1 by Arsen K. Sanjian requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing building for the purposes of operating an automotive service center on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 32. Mr. Morrow: Because this is a tabled item, I would request that we have a motion to remove from the table. 12735 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously aprpoved, it was #3-61-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-1-2-1 by Arsen K. Sanjian requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing building for the purposes of operating an automotive service center on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, be taken from the table. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy do we have anything coming through your office that we should be aware of? Mr. Nagy: We do have a revised site plan since your study meeting of last Tuesday. We advised you in our staff report what those changes were by reduction of truck hoists, as well as the elimination of some of the doors opening onto Plymouth Road, and increased landscaping at the rear of the property line. Mr. Morrow: Who is going to present those plans to the Commission tonight? Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I am representing Mr. Sanjian. Since the study session last Tuesday, Mr. Sanjian revised the site plan and filed it with the Planning Department on Thursday. I will review all of the things that were changed which I think are most of the things that were discussed last Tuesdsay night. First, the landscaping has been enlarged so it meets the ordinance. It is in erry excess of 15% and in addition to that Mr. Sanjian has agreed to put in 15 additional trees along the south property line, which is the property line that adjoins the residential. In addition to that, on the building if you recall last week there were nine overhead doors. Mr. Sanjian reduced that by four. He took out all the overhead doors in the area that is presently the showroom. The other overhead doors would be up front. There were some heavy duty hoists and they have been removed. I understand the interpretation of the ordinance, more particularly Mr. Fegan's letter of what he can use the new addition for, and that would prohibit repair of anything over one ton. He is aware of that and the hoist that he is putting in here will accommodate up to one ton and not over. Some of the other things, if you recall last week the previous use was a body shop. Mr. Sanjian is taking this body shop and moving it over to this area. (This was pointed out on the plan). It takes the body shop, which is the source of a lot of noise, away from the neighborhood. This area in the back would be used for service and repair. As you can see there is only one existing overhead door. There is going to be no addition to that one overhead door. He is going to limit it to a drive-thru bay. I think the other thing we wanted to point out is the contrast to the prior operation, which was, from what I understand, a two-shift operation. Mr. Sanjian is going to limit his hours of operation until 7:00 p.m. during the week and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday and he will be closed all day on Sunday. I think that is the extent of the changes. 12736 Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have five doors on the new addition. Is that correct? Mr. Tangora: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Where the showroom is at the present time, what is going to be in there? Mr. Tangora: He has indicated that the only thing to be in there is a waiting area. Mr. Alanskas: At the present time you have how many hoists? MNr. Tangora: Six. Mr. Alanskas: One is a large hoist compared to the other four. What are you going to do with that hoist? Mr. Sanjian: Alignments. Mr. Alanskas: The front where you have yellow markers for parking, are they going to stay there? Mr. Sanjian: We can take them out if you want me to. Mr. Alanskas; Don't you have more landscaping going in that area? Mr. Sanjian: We have more than 15%. fir.. Mr. Alanskas: You had in your original plan to put landscaping there but you don't have to now because you are putting landscaping in the back of the building. Are you going to be doing tune ups and brake jobs? Mr. Sanjian: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Because your sign only says bumping and painting. It says nothing about tune ups and brakes. Mr. Sanjian: We don't have the ability to put more on our temporary sign. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, I still am having a problem. He is going to do heavy truck repair. Where are the 18 wheelers, the big mack trucks going to be parking? Mr. Tangora: There isn't going to be any. The maximum they can do is two-ton. Mr. Nagy: They can repair two-ton trucks within the existing building. Mr. McCann: In the old building they can do two-ton? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. McCann: In the new addition, they can repair a maximum of 3/4 ton? 12737 Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. McCann: The old plan had some greenbelt in the front. Do the new plans? Mr. Nagy: That remains the same. Mr. McCann: Are you going to be parking cars overnight? Will they be parked in the northeast corner of the property? Mr. Tangora pointed out on the site plan the area where the cars will be parked overnight. Mr. Tangora: The parking will be considerably reduced from the prior operation. Mr. Sanjian: By eliminating the four doors in the showroom, we are going to maintain most of the landscaping. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, did you and your client meet with the residents of the area like you said you were going to do? Mr. Tangora: I think Mr. Sanjian has talked with some of the residents. We met last Tuesday night with two residents that were at the study session. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that only 10% of this operation will be collision work? Mr. Sanjian: About that. _or Mr. LaPine: Will you have any vehicles parked in the rear of the building? Damaged vehicles waiting for insurance adjustors to come? Mr. Sanjian: That is going to be not even 3%. Mr. LaPine: Assuming the claim adjustor says this car is not worth being fixed, how long will that vehicle stay there before you remove it from the property? Mr. Sanjian: Immediately. Mr. LaPine: What I am worried about, you are not going to leave cars there and then strip them of parts? Mr. Sanjian: It is not a junk yard. I don't want to have a junk yard. It will be a clean operation. Mr. LaPine: There will not be any vehicles left there longer than a couple of days? Mr. Sanjian: Yes. *8:40 p.m. - Mr. Engebretson entered the meeting. Mr. Morrow: Are there any new hoists going into any new section? '— Mr. Sanjian: No sir. I eliminated two of them. 12738 Mr. Tent: You indicated you met with two people that were at the study meeting. Was there any reason why the rest of the neighbors ' weren't involved? Mr. Tangora: They weren't at the study meeting. Mr. Morrow: In all fairness to them, they did meet with the ones directly behind them and they were the only ones that came to the study meeting. If it is alright with the balance of the Commission, we will get some comments from the neighbors but it is not our intent to hold another public hearing. Martin Rubin, 35680 Elmira: We abut the property directly behind this proposed site. Some of the neighbors have brought to my attention a couple of things, in particular, the words are very nice, the problem is there is at the present time a vehicle that has been there in excess of two weeks at the southeast portion of the property. It has not been addressed. There have been problems with the previous circumstances that were not addressed. I can appreciate everyone likes to run a nice clean operation but the problem is, for example the brakes in particular, require the removal and replacement of tires in order to access those areas, which would be impossible to quiet it down to an acceptable level. We do have a community of children and dogs and all the regular things that a community of our type has. We are talking in excess of $130,000 homes there and I have been there in excess of 20 years. We would have an objection to the repair of brakes. It wasn't indicated for, as I understand it, a facility beyond a light repair, tune ups and things of that nature. Now there seems to be additional things. fir. It seems to have grown. I ask that that please be addressed. Mr. Morrow: Is that a permitted use John? Mr. Nagy: What they are petitioning for are those kinds of auto repairs. That is why we have the hearing tonight because of what is being proposed by way of this expansion and the scope of services that are intended to be done in there require special uses. They are not automatically permitted so they are petitioning for a waiver of that prohibition to allow the expanded use of the property and expansion of the building for auto repair and truck repair, which will include brakes, etc. Mr. Rubin: Seven neighbors actually abut that property and they would be very interested in having their views observed. Mr. Nagy: That is the purpose of the hearing. Mr. Rubin: Regarding the paint aspect of it, I realize we have very stringent circumstances in Livonia but it was brought to my attention by one of the neighbors, has there been any concern or discussion with what will be done with overspray protection and those odors associated with a paint facility because all of our doorwalls open to the back of that particular facility. It would be very detrimental to our health. I have been up and down Levan Road and 12739 I am sure their intentions were to comply with the appropriate ordinances but it is offensive, particularly the odors that are generated by the normal operation of a facility that has the necessity for the resins necessary to mold, shape and finish parr bodies. On top of that you have the various applications of paints and thinners, etc. I know the neighbors would be very interested in displaying their opinions on that also. I haven't heard yet if there was going to be any air handling equipment, which would avert the problem of odors and/or dust and overspray. Mr. Morrow: Sir, we are just as keenly interested in that type of thing as you are but we are not the experts of that. John, who would be the appropriate people to see regarding these types of things? Mr. Nagy: The Wayne County Health Department Air Quality Control regulates spray booths. They have to get a permit from Wayne County Department of Public Health. They will have to have all their equipment inspected. Permits will be issued from the Wayne County Health Department. They are the ones that administer quality standards for all the municipalities in the County of Wayne. Mr. Rubin: These will be the same basic organizations that have done so for those businesses along Levan Road? Mr. Nagy: Yes. They administer those ordinances for the entire City of Livonia and all cities within Wayne County. Mr. Rubin: Have you driven along Levan Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft in the last six months? 'gay Mr. Nagy: Of course I have. Mr. Rubin: Do you feel those are the type of qualities you would like to have abutting your property? Mr. Morrow: Sir that is putting our Director on the spot. It is subjective to how you feel, how he feels, how we feel. Mr. Rubin: What about how we feel. We abut those properties. We are talking about a combined asset in excess of a million dollars, which we took out of our pockets to live there 23 years. We are not interested in a smell that is offensive that may diminish our property and our lifestyle. I ask that you please address that. Nicholas Zlonkevicz, 35624 Elmira: The last time we talked, you talked about limiting it to 3/4 ton trucks. Now you are talking about two-ton trucks. Last time you talked about the grandfather clause. Mr. Sanjian said the work had been done previously by the previous owner. I said that is not true. He said the heavy work would be done in the back instead of the front. We are going to get all that noise. My home is about 40 yards away from that. The heavy work should be done in the front not in the back. 4411.. 12740 Mr. Morrow: Did you see Mr. Fegan during the course of the week because what we have is a letter from Mr. Fegan indicating that the uses were grandfathered within the existing building and we were addressing the new building as it related to the heavy truck repair. I know Nrr you had some concerns about that and I suggested that you see Mr. Fegan because all we had to go on was what he told us and that is currently all we have to go on. Mr. Zlonkevicz: How big is a two-ton truck? Mr. Sanjian: Slightly larger than a UPS truck. Mr. Morrow: It is not a real big truck but it is a size a little bit bigger than a UPS delivery truck. Can you picture that sir? Mr. Zlonkevicz: Yes. It is still a long way from the 3/4 ton truck we talked about last week. Whatever happened to the ordinance? It is light manufacturing. We are talking about heavy duty repair. Mr. Morrow: We have attempted to explain our Inspection Chief has told us that the use of the two-ton is grandfathered into the existing building. The new building cannot have anything larger than 3/4 ton. I don't know what else to tell you other than what he is telling us. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter here that was read at the study meeting. We would be happy to furnish you with a copy but it was read to you personally at the study meeting last Tuesday. If you or any of the residents wish to have a copy of this, just come into our office tomorrow and we will make you a copy. `\r. Mr. Zlonkevicz: I disagreed then and I disagree now. Mr. Nagy: I understand but the City's expert person in charge of making that determination, whether there is a valid non-conforming use in existence on that property, the City's expert on that, our Chief Building Official, made the statement. He has gone on record in writing to that effect. Mr. Morrow: I am going to end the discussion and ask for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-62-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-1 by Arsen K. Sanjian requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing building for the purposes of operating an automotive service center on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-1-2-1 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning o.. Ordinance #543. 12741 2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area. 3) That the location and size of the proposed use and its nature and \r► intensity are such that it will be injurious to the peace and tranquility of the abutting residential neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance x(543, as amended. Mr. McCann: I have a problem. Automobile lots and new car sales are a beautiful thing along Plymouth Road but this area they have tried to clean up. There are a lot of buildings. It is more of a commercial than industrial area. When original approval was given to this site location for use and repair of auto and ancillary use, the main purpose of that property was for the sale of new or used cars and/or motor homes. It was never intended that this was going to be a vehicle repair facility. I do not believe it was intended nor is it proper in that area to expand it in any way, including the expansion we are discussing tonight. That would be wrong. I am therefore moving to deny. Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with Mr. McCann and I don't feel this type of repair shop should be encroaching on the residential as it is. I don't think that is the place. We have many other areas in Livonia for that type of business. Mr. Engebretson: I want to apologize for being late tonight. I had a plane held v,kap, up in West Palm Beach. I felt the necessity to come here because we have had a series of tie votes. I would like to say that though I have only been here for the last 20 to 25 minutes, I have studied this matter with intensity at prior meetings and visited this site on a couple of occasions and I feel very qualified to vote. I don't want to give anybody the impression that I take this lightly. My vote would be a very informed, well thought-out vote. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 659th Regular Meeting held on February 23, 1993. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was #13-63-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 559th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 1993 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: None `" Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12742 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Council Resolution #79-93 requesting a new report and recommendation and/or such other disposition as the Planning Commission may deem appropriate on Petition 92-12-6-6 by the City Planning Commission proposing to amend Sections ``.- 2.10 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide standards for the location of Family Entertainment Centers as waiver uses in C-2 zoning districts. Mr. Morrow: A motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 113-64-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 12, 1993 on Petition 92-12-6-6 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide standards for the location of Family Entertainment Centers as waiver uses in C-2 zoning districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 92-12-6-6 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine: By us withdrawing it, the City Council can't pick this up? Mr. Nagy: Correct. `. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to take a moment and give recognition to the residents who spent considerable time, effort and energy to inform all the various offices within the City of how they felt about this proposal. This proposal was a predecessor to the development of an entertainment center in the Wonderland Shopping Center that deals with new technology and we didn't know what we were dealing with. The process that we went through involved many citizens, some of which are here tonight. I just want them to know how important their efforts were, not only as it pertained to the City Planning Commission, but also the Mayor and the City Council. We were really very much impressed with the positions taken. The meetings got a little rowdy several times, but that is what a democracy is all about. I think this is a really great example of why it is good to live in Livonia. The various landowners can conceive ideas that they may believe truly in their heart are going to be an asset to the community and after we hash it out in the public hearing process and we interact for hours on end with the residents, we believe we are going to come to a very appropriate conclusion here tonight, and I am not sure where this would have gone without that citizen involvement so I wanted to honor those that took time to give us the benefit of their feelings on this. I think, as Mr. LaPine indicated, by withdrawing this petition, this is the end of it, certainly for now. There can't be any decision that will bring this item back on the table as has happened several times recently. The City Council was very much opposed, as I understand it, to this 12743 petition but they deemed it appropriate to send it back to the City Planning Commission, the body that basically spent all the time in investigating the merits and demerits of this proposal and so they sent it back here for proper disposition and we had two choices. `r, We could deny our own petition but that leaves it open ended where it could then later be, the activity that was sent back here, could be rescinded and suddenly it is alive again. By withdrawing it, it is dead. This petition never existed, assuming that withdrawal passes tonight. That is another reason I wanted to come here tonight. I thought there would be a few people like Henry Binder back there and I felt a real need to share my feelings with the audience because you really made a difference. Mr. McCann: Mr. Engebretson put it very eloquently but I would like to add something. During a lot of these meetings we get a lot of people come up here and they get up there and they give us the argument "not in my backyard". We hear that so often. If every resident had their way, Livonia would have 10 houses and the rest of the City would be open park land. We understand because it is important to you people. To be honest with you, I didn't realize until we had the public hearing, although there was a lot of "not in my backyard", there was also some very constructive insight as to what it would mean to the individuals and to the community, and it is that type of organized, structured organization that can come up with clear and concise thoughts as to the problem, well thought out before they came here and that made it an effective meeting and ended up with the results you have tonight. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: So that was adopted which means that our request to change the ordinance to allow such things as a family entertainment center does not exist. In order for it to ever come back, we would have to write another ordinance. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Atlas Signs, on behalf of Grand Rental Station, requesting approval for one wall sign on property located at 11211 Wayne Road in Section 33. Mr. Miller: This is the rental station that was approved. It is a building that was attached to the Commercial Lawnmower that is on the corner of Wayne and Plymouth Roads. As a condition of the site plan approval, it was required that they come back with any sign to get approval by the Planning Commission. The sign will be located in the front of the building. It is 37 square feet. They are allowed 55 square feet so they are in compliance with the sign ordinance. Mr. Alanskas: How is it going to be lit? Mr. George: Fluorescent. It will be turned off at 9:00 p.m. 12744 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was fir. #3-65-93 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by Atlas Signs, on behalf of Grand Rental Station, requesting approval for one wall sign on property located at 11211 Wayne Road in Section 33 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Plan received 3/4/93, submitted by Atlas Signs for the Grand Rental Station at 11211 Wayne Road is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 660th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 9, 1993 was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - ' .James C. McCann, Secretary otir ATTEST:\ .Q R. ee Morro , Acting Chairman jgg \n.