HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-03-14 10570
MINUTES OF THE 575th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
r : HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
IILIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 14, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 575th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski
Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann
Jack Engebretson William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning
Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek 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
Li. petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do
not become effective until 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
89-1-2-2 by the Rotary Club of Livonia requesting waiver use approval to
hold a fund-raising carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the southeast
corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a
letter in our file from the Department of Public Safety, Division of
Fire, stating their office has no objections to its location. We
also have received a letter from Robert E. Thorne of the Department
of Public Safety, Division of Police, stating the proposal is
acceptable as long as: (1) All parking is confined to the D.R.C.
property. (2) Entrance/exit is confined to the normal operating
gates, i.e. Middlebelt at Industrial, and Schoolcraft -
[- approximately 1,300 feet and 2,000 feet east of Middlebelt. Also
in our file is a letter from the Inspection Department stating
their office has no objections to the proposal.
tir.
10571
Mr. Vyhnalek: You would like to put on a carnival at the DRC? Tell me
something about it.
to. James Craver, 14101 Deering, Livonia: We use it as a fund raiser. I think
everyone is aware of what we did with our funds we raised from the
carnival that was at the other location last year.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What did you do?
Mr. Craver: We gave a larger percentage of the funds we raised to the senior
citizen's programs. I don't have the list with me, a number of
programs were included.
Mr. LaPine: You heard the letter we received? All the parking will be on the
race track parcel. Is that correct?
Mr. Craver: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: All trucks and everything will be parked off site?
Mr. Craver: They will be away from the actual carnival.
Mr. LaPine: The City is no way liable? You have your own insurance?
Mr. Craver: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: Could you just tell me a little bit about how the Rotary is involved
on a day to day operation as far as supervising the carnival? Do
you have your ongoing staff there during the duration of the
carnival?
Mr. Craver: Yes sir. We are going to work hand in hand with the people from
Wade Shows to see that everything is taken care of.
Mr. Morrow: You will have on-site members there overseeing the operation?
Mr. Craver: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What are the dates?
Mr. Craver: May 22nd through the 29th.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What are the hours going to be?
Mr. Craver: The weekends until midnight and through the week 11:00 p.m. or 11:30
p.m. depending on traffic. We would start during the afternoon
during the week and around 12:00 p.m. on weekends and 1:00 a.m. on
Sunday.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Just for the record who is the other gentleman you are talking to?
Gil Walters, 2709 Capitol, Warren, with the W. G. Wade Shows.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be beer sold?
olo. Mr. Walters: No, there will be no alcoholic beverages.
10572
Mr. LaPine: Is the Rotary going to have any alcohol sold?
Mr. Craver: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: Will you have special police there?
Mr. Walters: We will have special security on site.
Mr. LaPine: Is that Livonia police officers or special police or how do you
handle that?
Mr. Walters: It will be either security patrol or else off-duty Livonia police.
We will probably have a meeting with the Police Department regarding
that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#3-46-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
14, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-2 by the Rotary Club of Livonia requesting
waiver use approval to hold a fund-raising carnival at Ladbroke DRC
located at the southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and
Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-1-2-2 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other
related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the
`41110, operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on the D.R.C.
property adjacent to the carnival site.
2) That all parking is confined to the D.R.C. property.
3) Entrance/exit is confined to the normal operating gates, i.e.
Middlebelt at Industrial, and Schoolcraft - approximately 1,300 feet
and 2,000 feet east of Middlebelt.
for the following reasons:
1) That the site has the capacity to accomodate the proposed use.
2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06
of Zoning Ordinance #543.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: None
10573
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
''r► Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is 89-1-2-7 by Gus
ar. Kasapis requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing Ram's Horn
Restaurant located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Morlock
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau of the
Department of Public Safety stating the following: 1. The Morlock
driveway should be relocated towards Middlebelt Road approximately
10 feet and made 24 feet wide. 2. With the exception of the south
row of parking, which are 10 feet wide, all other spaces on the
Middlebelt side are 9 feet; less than the required 10 feet. 3. The
rear spaces are undesirable because vehicles can only back to the
street. If used by employees, they would be marginally acceptable.
4. On-street parking should be discouraged. We also have in our
file a letter from the Division of Fire, Department of Public
Safety, stating they have no objections to this proposal. A letter
is also in our file from the Engineering Department stating their
office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have a letter
in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the
Inspection Department stating the following: 1. No on-site
landscaping is proposed. 2. Deficient parking of 53 spaces. 3.
Eighteen of the proposed spaces are each 1 ft. too narrow. 4. The
area at the rear of the building is too narrow to provide angle
parking and a supporting aisleway. 5. The north aisleway is
""ito" deficient by 1.73 feet. 6. The east aisleway is deficient at the
foyer by 1 ft. 7. The north sideyard is deficient by 2.83 ft. The
above items are scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals
on March 21, 1989.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It looks like you have a number of violations before you even get
started. Tell me what you want to do.
Gus Kasapis, 20385 Middlebelt: I have owned and developed that restaurant for 21
years. It was our original restaurant and when we did develop that
property we were in accordance with the City of Livonia. I would
like to make that point clear. Today, it is 21 years later and the
restaurant does need improving. We just did a complete renovation
of that facility to the tune of $500,000 but our final analysis is
that the restaurant has to expand to justify not only our expenses,
but the need to care for the community as to what our business
growth is in that particular facility. Four years ago I bought
another facility in Farmington to relieve the pressure on the
Livonia Ram's Horn and now we have two wonderful restaurants. What
I am asking the City for is to allow us to make that building 20
feet longer so that we can add 25 more seats. In my opinion, in
spite of our deficiency, the restaurant will support that many
people plus the parking, and I can speak from owning 22 restaurants
in the metropolitan Detroit area. I would not do anything that
would impair the safety of our customers or the public domain. If
10574
we did the thing today, the facility would never exist. What I am
trying to do is improve our property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I understand that but it looks like you are trying to overbuild.
The parking is very deficient.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Kasapis, first of all I want to say you do have a nice
operation. My concern is you have outgrown its use. The thing I am
concerned about is parking and you indicate they use the surrounding
area to park their automobiles. In all good planning, I can't
justify an expansion in that area just because the business is
there. To expand puts too big a burden on neighboring properties to
park.
Mr. Kasapis pointed out on the map where the customers are parking.
Mr. Tent: You have to confine the parking within your own property. My
feeling is that I can't, in good conscience, go along with an
expansion that would be detrimental to the area. I would hope you
could find another site within the City and put in another fine
restaurant. I hate to have you move out of the City.
Mr. McCann: One of the things you mentioned to us at the study meeting, there
are currently cars parking on Morlock. Is that correct?
Mr. Kasapis: Yes.
Mr. McCann: How far back do they park at a busy time?
Mr. Kasapis pointed this out on the map.
Nor
Mr. McCann: Do they park along the street back where homes are?
Mr. Kasapis: No.
People in audience stated they do park there.
Mr. Kasapis: Yes I guess they do.
Mr. McCann: In your addition, are you deleting parking or are you adding
parking?
Mr. Kasapis: We will delete 3 parking spaces. We actually have 43 parking spaces
now according to our 1969 design. We came to conclusion we had to
adjust for handicap, we tried to adjust for the 10 foot wide spaces
and obviously we reduced the number of spaces from 42 to 35 and then
the loss of the 3 additional ones, that is how we got the 35.
Mr. LaPine: I am curious. You stated that with the addition you are going to
add 25 seats.
Mr. Kasapis: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Right now you have 24 seats you are not entitled to. According to
the notes I have, when the original plan was approved you were
`` granted 72 seats. According to the notes, you now have 96 seats.
So consequently you have been operating there with 24 seats you
10575
legally shouldn't have had. I am curious how you did this. Did
this just happen?
ion,
me
Mr. Kasapis: It samesstill in everything. Itris1nals onlyc2700onditsquareafeeteofsbuilding.unter,
Mr. LaPine: I believe Mr. Tent put it about as clear as I can tell you, you
have a good operation. Ram Horn's throughout the City is a good
chain but unfortunately you have become too big for that location.
You have to stay small or find another location in the City to
expand but I, for one, cannot allow you to expand there with the
deficiency you have in parking. I don't know how you have been that
successful because most people, when they go to a restaurant, if
they can't park close to the front door, they go down the street.
It is probably due to the good operation you have there that you
have been that successful but I just can't see the expansion with
the amount of deficiencies you have.
Mr. Kluver: To go back to the ordinance requirements. In the parking, there is
the deficiency of 53 spaces. That is an impact on the area and
obviously we know where the parking goes. The parking goes into the
neighborhood and it goes to the other adjacent commercial
operations. As the other Commissioners have alluded to, you have an
excellent operation in Livonia but you have reached a point where
you have deficiencies which far exceed any allowance within the
limits of the City of Livonia. It is only fair to yourself and to
the City that potentially this operation is beyond its capacity. To
e..y expand and improve this would not be in the best interest of the
citizens in the area or to the City of Livonia with the violations
that would be incurred by the deficiencies of this proposal.
Mr. Kasapis: On the flip side of that coin, the restaurant patrons line up every
night for service so we require more seating not necessarily in a
better facility but in a bigger facility.
Mr. Kluver: That is a credit to your operation but it really doesn't help to
create a bigger problem than is already there, mathematically and
within the structure of this ordinance, and we live by this
ordinance. That is how the City was built.
Mr. Kasapis: My petition is actually asking for a waiver of that.
Mr. Kluver: I understand that but there is an impact that goes beyond what you
have. It goes into the neighborhood. These are physical factors
which are here. I just want you to know what my position is. We
are proud to have you there but, as Mr. LaPine indicated,
potentially the site is overbuilt. It would indicate that you
should look for possibly someplace that could accommodate the need
you have.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Kasapis, has any attempt been made to acquire the property to
the south of you to relieve your crowded conditions? We are
talking about maybe going to another site but is that an adjoining
building to your south? Has any attempt been made to acquire that
property? Obviously you have a going concern. You have 21 other
Nap. going concerns.
10576
Mr. Kasapis: We contacted Schostak, who owns that property, and Mr. Schostak
asked me if I would pay out 20 years worth of leases which are
guaranteed by Serel Corporation. In other words he has an ironclad
,., Triple A lease on that property from Serel Corporation, which is
Nutra Sweet as well as Pearle Vision, so it would be cost
prohibitive for us to buy a lease from a major corporation. In
other words, it is not for sale.
Mr. Morrow: What you are saying is the tenant in there is completely happy with
his site? Sometimes we find tenants would like to get out of
leases.
Mr. Kasapis: That could happen in that particular situation with Pearle Vision
but Schostak is still assured of getting their money whether that
facility is open or closed just within the nature of their leases
there. Unfortunately it was a mistake I made 15 years ago when I
sold that piece of land to them but at that time I can remember my
brothers and I sitting on that corner and looking at the traffic
count. We would count three cars in an hour between two o'clock and
three o'clock in the morning when we were doing our personal
demoraphics. Today we have seen Livonia Mall during its peak and
now it is on a downturn because of what Novi has done to it. I
think it has rejuvenated a little bit. We still look at our
business as a community business not in relationship to the overall
major shopping demographics that have developed in the last ten
years.
Mr. Morrow: I wanted to pursue that and the only thing I would add is my feeling
is the same as my fellow commissioners, that this addition of this
many seats would only amplify the problems we have there now. That
would be my position.
The meeting was adjourned at this point because of loss of electrical power.
On Monday, March 20, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
continued its 575th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Gallery on the fifth
floor of Livonia City Hall.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski
Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann*
Jack Engebretson William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning
Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is a rescheduled Regular Meeting and Public Hearings from last
Tuesday when there was a blackout in City Hall. At that time we had
completed Item 1 on the agenda and we were in the middle of Item 2. We
are going to continue from the middle and at this time I would like the
Acting Secretary, Sue Sobolewski, to read Item 2.
10577
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the item on the agenda is Petition
89-1-2-7 by Gus Kasapis requesting waiver use approval to expand an
existing Ram's Horn Restaurant located on the southwest corner of
,. Middlebelt and Morlock Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25.
oomir
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
* 7:38 - Mr. McCann entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When we were interrupted last Tuesday we had just finished hearing
from the Commissioners and now we will now go to the audience if
anyone wishes to speak on this petition.
Gail Silvernail, 20404 Fremont: I live right behind United Rental. We are totally
against the addition because we have a major problem in this area.
We have a problem with traffic. We have a problem with delivery
trucks. We have a problem with their employees and we have a
problem with parking. We get cars parking everywhere. There is a
sidewalk that runs right next to the building of United Rental. We
cannot use that sidewalk because they have their employees parking
across the sidewalk. We have traffic parking on my property. We
have big trucks that pull in on our property and tear up our lawns.
City trucks, Edison trucks, Michigan Bell trucks, they pull in to
park for lunch and they park there. I have a picture here of how
close my driveway is to the parking. (She showed the picture) On
Sunday I have them parking up half my driveway. I have had an
incident where somebody has parked in my driveway. If they extend
their building, they are going to knock out some of their parking
area. Where will they park? Semi's come in off Middlebelt, go west
to Freemont and then back up onto Freemont to get in right direction
to unload their merchandise, endangering our children and our lawns.
It is a major problem. We have a problem - it is a 24 hour
restaurant. We have a horrible time at bar rush, after the bars are
closed on Friday and Saturday night. We have beer bottles, wine
bottles, whiskey bottles that we pick up all the time. I do know at
bar rush there is practically standing room only. If they add on
more area, we will have more people from the bars. I clean up my
yard continuously. On windy days when they dump their garbage into
their dumpster, all the garbage comes into my lot. If they allow
more seating, more people eating there, they are going to be having
more garbage. I will be cleaning more. They don't have enough
parking as it is and why do we, as the residents, have to put up
with people parking on our lawn. If he needs more space, let him
look around.
Sandra DeWater, 20335 Fremont: I live on the opposite corner and I agree with
everything she said but I don't want to repeat it. The only thing I
would add is when they do have their garbage picked up, it can be
any time, meaning five o'clock in the morning, they wake us. The
noise pollution is a big problem. Half drunk people squeal tires
and, of course, we are the corner they squeal them at. It is just a
combination of many things. We don't want any more of it. We have
kind of learned to sleep a little around the garbage trucks. The
people who get mad and walk home from the restaurants, and their
fir.• boyfriends or girlfriends chase them down the street, we are almost
getting used to this but we don't want to expand it any more than it
already is.
10578
Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I am one of the directors of the North Central
Livonia Civic Association. This is one of our boundaries from
Middlebelt to Farmington Road and I am in support of the people. I
have seen the Ram's Horn and I have also seen that there is not the
parking and if they put in more seating, there is going to be no
parking whatsoever. With the size of the parking spaces, people are
going to be taking up two spaces. We are in support of the
residents in the area.
Mr. Tent: Is there anything we can do about the problems that the citizens
have brought to our attention like making a recommendation to
alleviate the problems as far as the bar rush, garbage pickup and
noise pollution?
Mr. Vyhnalek: That has to be dealt with the Traffic Department and the City
Inspection Department.
Mr. Kluver: Possibly the Planning Commission might want to draft a letter to the
Livonia Police Department, Traffic Enforcement Group, to look at
that area as far as putting up no parking signs and no parking
between certain hours and also set up restrictions for the benefit
of the residents in the area and I would certainly be inclined to
direct a letter of that nature to the Police Department from this
group.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Gail, are you shaking your head no?
Mrs. Silvernail: If they put up no parking signs, our driveway is only two car
lengths, where is my company going to park?
'441. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Police Department will talk to you first.
Mrs. Fandrei: Perhaps a commercial no parking?
Mr. Kluver: That is the point of the letter obviously, not to restrict the
residents from parking in front of their own houses.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-7.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-47-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-7 by Gus Kasapis requesting waiver use
approval to expand an existing Ram's Horn Restaurant located on the
southwest corner of Middlebelt and Morlock Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-1-2-7 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affimatively 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.
*grow 2) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use as evidenced by the fact that the proposal fails to comply
with the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance #543: Section 11.09
with respect to side yard requirements, Section 18.37(o) with respect to
10579
parking lot layout standards and parking space size, Section
18.38(17)(b) with respect to the required number of off-street
parking spaces, and with respect to Section 19.06(j) with respect to
required site landscaping.
3) That the proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon the
neighboring property and the neighboring area in general because it will
interfere with and discourage the appropriate development and use of
adjacent and neighboring land.
4) That the location and size of the proposed use, the site layout and
intensity of the use, and the many violations of the Zoning
Ordinance, will be such that traffic to and from the site will be
hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the
normal use of the streets and adjacent parking lots in the area.
5) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote public
safety, provide for proper utilization of property that will
facilitate adequate provisions for increased safety in traffic,
vehicular parking and other requirements that lessen congestion and
prevent overcrowding of land by regulating and limiting the
location, height, bulk, occupancy, and uses of buildings, including
the percentage of lot coverage, street setback lines, sizes of
yards, and other open spaces.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, stated the next two items would be heard together since
they were both pertaining to a restaurant and liquor license at the same location.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next two items on the agenda are Petition
89-1-2-8 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct and operate Max & Erma's Restaurant within the
Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located at the northwest corner of
Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7
and Petition 89-1-2-9 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. ,
requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license
in conjunction with a proposed Max & Erma's Restaurant to be located
within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located on the northwest
corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 7.
Mr. Shane: The letters that we have received will apply to both Petitions
89-1-2-8 and 89-1-2-9. We have a letter in our file from the
Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire, stating they have no
objections to this proposal. We also have in our file a letter from
the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department stating the following:
1. The number of parking spaces has already been determined as part
of the overall Laurel Park project. Public parking spaces should be
10580
10 by 20 feet per vehicle. 2. Note when examining the site plan
that the drive entrance at Laurel Park North about 250 feet north of
Six Mile Road is constructed to "deny" southbound left turns into
the center. To alleviate problems for those driving to the center
,` entrance, signing will be needed at the drive located between
"Marriott Courtyard" and "Mid-Rise Hotel". This in turn will
necessitate the creation of an opening from the parking lot in front
of Mid-Rise to the main lot. The opening should be at the east end
of Mid-Rise parking. We have also received a letter from our
Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to
the proposal and finally we have a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You would like to put a restaurant in Jacobson's shopping center.
Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield, representing Schostak
Brothers: Yes sir. We have some extensive presentation material to
answer some of your questions that occurred in the study session. I
would like to note that Robert Schostak is here this evening if you
have any questions I may not be able to answer.
They made a presentation showing their drawings and plans and where the restaurant
would be located within the shopping center.
Mr. Polsinelli: The restaurant will be located at the mall entry to the south which
leads to a court where Marriott full service enters the mall and
thus continues up towards Jacobsons.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Polsinelli, the Traffic Department stated something about
signage on the Marriott?
Mr. Polsinelli: The location that I think they are speaking of is potentially the
confusion of the entry drive which is north of the entry drive
leading into the parking area which would be south and adjacent to
the two restaurants. I am not sure what kind of signage they were
proposing. I do know, however, that when the Marriott went before
the ZBA and Council they were denied some additional signage that
would designate that this drive was for the Marriott Full Service
and we are allowed one small sign that is located approximately in
this location here (He pointed it out on plan).
Mr. Vyhnalek: The patrons that come to Max and Erma's, they could use either
parking lot, the one by the hotel or the one by the shopping center?
Mr. Polsinelli: No. This parking lot located on the south side of the mid-rise
is exclusively for the mid-rise.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There probably would have to be some signage at the first entrance.
Mr. Polsinelli: We would not be opposed to present to the City some directional
signage that would occur at some of these areas. We do have some
thoughts relative to addressing some of the entrys - low profiles,
small but significant enough that if someone is looking for
something, they could get the directions.
10581
Mr. LaPine: Where do your deliveries come?
Mr. Polsinelli: The deliveries are through a service corridor and are planned for
after hours.
Mr. LaPine: Where is your receptacle for your trash?
Mr. Polsinelli: There is an interior storage and after hours it is deposited in
the service court located adjacent to Dennison's Restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: Are Dennison's and Max and Erma's going to use the same dumpster?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Most of your deliveries will be after hours?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Polsinelli, I have three questions. You have a Max & Erma's
operation now in West Bloomfield at Fourteen Mile. Will this be
a similar operation? That is a large restaurant. They have a
diversified menu. Can you tell me how this will differ?
Mr. Schostak: The Max and Erma's Restaurant at Fourteen Mile and Orchard Lake in
Farmington Hills is the same company operating out of Columbus,
Ohio. It is a restaurant that opened six or seven years ago so it
is not quite the same design and same size but it is going to be
essentially the same concept. If you have been over there more
recently, say in the last 90 days, they recently completed some
remodeling both exterior and interior to update it to their current
image. By and large the menu is the same.
Mr. Tent: That concerns me, if the menu is going to be same. You have an
oyster bar and you have a fish menu and you have beef. Now
Dennison's next door, how will they differ?
Mr. Schostak: That is probably a question that we asked ourselves during our
leasing process and I would respond to you in the way that they
responded to us. First off, D. Dennison's is essentially a 100%
seafood restaurant. It is operated by the Main Street Ventures
Company, which is a 100% seafood operation with about 15 restaurants
throughout the midwest and east. Max and Erma's is more of a theme
restaurant which is catering to more trendy foods and is one that
moves its menu based upon what theme restaurants or trendy
restaurants today are doing. Yes, they will have an oyster bar and
they will have a variety of burgers and normal appetizers that are
common in today's theme restaurants but their specialty is really
more family dining. They are downplaying the liquor aspect of it.
They are catering to a broader appeal whereas D. Dennison's is a
seafood house.
Mr. Tent: The standing room capacity in your bar, how many will your standing
room hold?
Mr. Polsinelli: 111.
10582
Mr. Tent: You indicated 137 seats in the bar portion?
Mr. Polsinelli: It is divided. The bar has 20 seats and the restaurant has 140
seats.
Mr. Engebretson: Mike, I believe you just mentioned that the restaurant would have
140 seats. Last time, I wrote a note that you indicated 160. Has
that changed?
Mr. Polsinelli: It is 160 - 140 in the dining room and 20 in the bar, which is
160, and 111 standing.
Mr. Engebretson: So what are your counts now?
Mr. Polsinelli: 271 is total capacity with 111 standing only. I think I can show
you what happened. When the first submission was made, we then
developed this concept with them and they in turn had to adjust some
of their seats to fit this concept. I think there were a couple of
seats that were dropped from the original submission.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not familiar with Max & Erma's and I am curious as to the
type of clientele Max and Erma's is suited to with 111 standing
places in the bar. Is this a drinking kind of operation or
restaurant?
Mr. Schostak: Well to be sure, with a liquor license, they intend to cater to a
crowd who wants liquor with their meal but by and large the concept
is that the food and the menu is what is going to be the stars of
the concept and the liquor goes with it, different than the reverse,
which is liquor and then hors d'oeuvres to stimulate the drinking.
`r- They describe themselves as a family oriented theme restaurant with
a broad menu that caters to families. There will be an after work
crowd that is going to be incurred through their bar but by and
large I think they are oriented more for dining than to be a bar
only operation. If you look at the elevation they have treated the
mall area to encourage that you are looking into the dining room
and you are seeing the restaurant and seeing the food preparation
and the excitement of a theme restaurant.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the theme?
Mr. Schostak: It is festive. That it is going to be a fun place to eat. The
concept they had a few years ago was brunches on Sunday. They just
want to create an atmosphere that is fun to be at. It is not an
entertainment area where there is live music or music at all but
they are creating a theme restaurant today. It is to be an exciting
environment. A new menu with fresh ideas.
Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of operation?
Mr. Polsinelli: Primarily it will be the mall hours, maybe just a little bit later
in the morning. One of the reasons for the exterior doors is
closing hours will be an hour or two after mall closes.
Mr. LaPine: Will they stay open when the theaters are operating? Will they stay
open to service the theaters?
10583
Mr. Polsinelli: Their staying open will not relate to the theaters.
Mr. Polsinelli continued with his presentation.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think we should get into the liquor license. Maybe there are some
questions on the liquor license. You say you have to have a liquor
license to operate this type of restaurant?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: All the Max & Erma's have liquor licenses. Is that correct?
Mr. Polsinelli: To my knowledge yes.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Schostak, you have a liquor license in escrow right now. Why
can't that license be used in one of these restaurants?
Mr. Schostak: The liquor license in escrow is part of Wonderland Shopping Center
acquisition of the former Jacks Or Better license that they had and
when this business terminated, in an effort to preserve the license
and to preserve the ultimate re-use of the space in Wonderland to
offer liquor as part of the menu, we secured the rights to it and
have put it in escrow. It would be our intent, in accomplishing
that, to have a liquor license oriented restaurant at Wonderland as
well so the fact that the license is in escrow, we view it as a
license we would like to preserve for Wonderland and not move it
across town.
Mr. LaPine: If you used that license there, then at such time that you develop a
restaurant at Wonderland, you could come back and ask for a liquor
�•► license at that location. I have a problem. What we are doing, in
effect, is giving you two more liquor licenses. The liquor licenses
are not going to be made out to the restaurants. They are going to
be made out to Schostak. If these restaurants go under, which I
hope they never do, you will have three liquor licenses. Why should
we let you keep one in escrow. Why shouldn't you use your license
here and then at such time that you develop a restaurant at
Wonderland, then we will take that under consideration. I have a
problem with keeping liquor licenses in escrow.
Mr. Schostak: So does the Liquor Control Commission. It has not been easy to keep
that in escrow. We view the Wonderland location as a totally
separate entity, which indeed it is. Wonderland is owned by members
of our firm and my family but not the same group that owns Laurel
Plaza. We are preserving "that asset" for the partnership that owns
Wonderland. I don't believe this to be a fair common denominator.
If we are able to put the Wonderland license to use at Wonderland,
that is what we would hope to do and that is why we didn't allow the
license to be trafficked by the owners of that former restaurant.
We did this for the benefit of Wonderland. Wonderland is Wonderland
and it stands on its own and it is a major shopping center. We have
rehabilitated it and today it is a successful ongoing operation.
The fact that Laurel Park is requesting licenses, I don't know that
we should base our marketing decision for Laurel Park on
10584
availability of licenses at Wonderland. I can understand your
feeling that the Schostak group would have three licenses under its
umbrella, but it is really not quite the same. Wonderland, as I
said, is an entity where we hope to one day use that license
assuming the LCC continues to cooperate and I have made the comment
to this group and others that we intend to use it at Wonderland and
if the LCC or the City, at a point in time, does not permit its use
at Wonderland, then so be it but we need to try to preserve that
license.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petitions 89-1-2-8 and 89-1-2-9
closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-48-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-8 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate Max & Erma's
Restaurant within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located at the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-1-2-8 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the Floor Plan dated 3-8-89, as revised, prepared by Daniel
Cline & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 3-8-89 prepared by Daniel
Cline & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
3) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant, including the
bar seating and standing spots, shall not exceed 271.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is a normal part of a mixed use project as
represented by the Laurel Park Place.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10585
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote in favor of this petition but I do have a problem
with the 1,000' waiver use. If this were in any other location, I
would not be in favor.
Mr. Vyhnalek: More than one commissioner feels that way.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-49-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-9 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. ,
requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in
conjunction with a proposed Max & Erma's Restaurant to be located within
the Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located at the northwest corner of
Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-1-2-9 be approved, subject to the waiving of the 1000'
separation requirement by the City Council as set forth in Section
11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance #543, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That a Class C license is a normal accessory use to the principal
use within which it is proposed to be utilized.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We will also be hearing Items 5 and 6 together because they also are
for a restaurant and liquor license at the same location.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next two items on the agenda are Petition
89-1-2-10 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. , requesting waiver use
approval to construct and operate D. Dennison's Restaurant within the
Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located on the northwest corner of Six
Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 and
Petition 89-1-2-11 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. , requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction
with a proposed D. Dennison's restaurant to be located within the Laurel
Park Place Shopping Mall located at the northwest corner of Six Mile
Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
10586
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: The letters I will read pertain to both items. We have received a
letter from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire,
%O, stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We also
have in our file a letter from the Traffic Bureau of the Police
Department stating the following: 1. The number of parking spaces
has already been determined as part of the overall Laurel Park
project. Public parking spaces should be 10 by 20 feet per vehicle.
2. Note when examining the site plan that the drive entrance at
Laurel Park North about 250 feet north of Six Mile Road is
constructed to "deny" southbound left turns into the center. To
alleviate problems for those driving to the center entrance, signing
will be needed at the drive located between "Marriott Courtyard" and
"Mid-Rise Hotel". This in turn will necessitate the creation of an
opening from the parking lot in front of Mid-Rise to the main lot.
The opening should be at the east end of Mid-Rise parking. We also
have received a letter from our Engineering Department stating their
office has no objections to this proposal. Finally, we have in our
file a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the
Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems
were found: The approved sign package does not permit exterior wall
signs for tenants. The signs proposed on elevations #2 and #3 are,
therefore, not permitted.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They would have to go to ZBA?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Polsinelli, did you understand that about the signs?
Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: Yes. That is normal.
We will take our signs back on an individual basis. Again,
quickly, D. Dennison's is located closer to the Marriott Full
Service on west side of the mall entry.
Mr. Polsinelli then made a presentation showing the various plans.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that outside seating portion going to be protected from the
parking Lot?
Mr. Polsinelli: There is a fence or grill that does not allow access. There is no
access directly from parking lot or exterior.
Mr. McCann: The interior side of the mall, is that going to be glass between
exterior of restaurant and mall? Is it open air?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes, open air. You will get the flavor of the restaurant as you
come down the mall.
Mr. Tent: I would like some clarification. At the prestudy meeting we
discussed the two restaurants. Would the menus be different in each
restaurant? Maybe I misunderstood but I was told that in Dennison's
it would be a beef restaurant and it would be more family oriented
10587
than at Max & Erma's? D. Dennison's wouldn't specialize in seafood
and now you indicated the menus would be almost identical.
Mr. Polsinelli: Dennison's is a seafood restaurant.
Mr. Tent: Max & Erma's has the shrimp and oyster bar. How will this be
different?
Mr. Polsinelli: I think Bob related to that before.
Mr. Tent: What I assume is the only difference between the two would be, one
is liquor oriented, which would be Max & Erma's, and the other is
family oriented.
Mr. Schostak: To be sure, they are going to compete. I don't think we can evade
that fact. These types of restaurants are going to compete. The
difference is each of the restaurants has picked a focus of their
menu and the D. Dennison Corporation, the parent company, their
emphasis, with all of their restaurants, is seafood oriented
restaurants. They sell fresh catches of the day and yes they are
catering to family and yes they have liquor that goes along with it
and they will have the oyster bar that will attract the after-work
crowd. I think the overlap you are referring to is the fact that
Max and Erma's is going to have seafood items but they are really
playing more towards the type of restaurant that is going to cater
to the broader palate of a restaurant customer. If you are not
interested in exclusively a seafood meal, chances are you will not
go to D. Dennison's, and D. Dennison's and Max and Erma's can locate
next to each other in this mall or they could locate across the
street from one another effectively each filling their own niche. I
don't think it is a question of the menus overlapping, therefore we
are not likely going to have a restaurant that fails. It is true
there will be some competition but one will be more seafood and one
a more broad theme restaurant catering to a fuller menu.
Mr. Tent: How would you compare either of these restaurants to Stuart
Andersons that failed across the street?
Mr. Schostak: I think Stuart Andersons was a grille that focused itself on a style
of cooking and it focused itself on more beef. They came to this
part of the country with a focus on beef and burgers but that was
their style of cooking and I think the failure here was not related
to Livonia.
Mrs. Fandrei: How many other restaurants are there in the mall?
Mr. Schostak: The mall is opening August 3. Today we don't have any. We intend
to have these two and we will have some smaller, more for light
lunches and light dinners to service mall and office building
patrons.
Mrs. Fandrei: You are planning on that type of food service for the lunch crowds?
The ladies who do not want to service the bar. That is one of my
concerns. One I can appreciate but two I can't.
10588
Mr. Schostak: Let me articulate a little further on what our concept is overall,
which will help bring it into focus for you. When we originally
developed the concept of Laurel Park as a mixed use project, we
planned a fashion oriented shopping mall, a mid-rise hotel and three
office buildings of approximately 300,000 square feet to create a
`r plan of different uses that would complement one to another. That
plan was that the hotel would anchor the north section of the mall.
Jacobsons helped set the theme for quality retail and the office
buildings, employing some 1000 to 1500 people, would create an
anchor for the north end of the mall along with, one day, a future
department store. We feel that Laurel Park Place is the dominant
quality shopping, office environment ultimately in all of Michigan
and we say that frankly, openly and quite confidently. Part of that
ambiance of locating in Laurel Park, in terms of both as a retailer
and office tenant, is as a retailer you are going to benefit from
the quality office worker that is seeking a nice place to shop, eat
and conduct their business, that being nice stores like Jacobsons,
the mid-rise hotel, which is attached to the mall, and restaurants.
The mid-rise hotel makes it possible for the transient visitors that
are visiting people in the area or are here for business to use the
mall. Those office tenants that have corporations that have
regional offices here and are seeking a place for their people to
stay when they come in for a day or two, they meet in the offices,
they have an adjoining attached hotel, they have covered parking and
they are able to be all under one roof, so the whole project works
for them. The office tenants generally seek two types of eating.
One is affordable, quick, restaurant dining for lunch for the
clerical workers and middle management people that just want to get
a quick sandwich and they seek a more quality restaurant with a
fuller menu where they might be entertaining a client so our concept
was to put two theme restaurants off the Marriott Hotel, which helps
play off the activity that the hotel will generate and then to
locate 3 or 4 moderate priced luncheon restaurants for those in the
office buildings and shoppers in the mall that perhaps aren't
seeking a 45 minute lunch. They can have a quick sandwich. At the
same time, because of the adjacency of the office buildings, this
encourages the office worker to travel directly across the covered
walkway into the mall and they have their choice. We tried to think
through, based on the total concept of this development, what would
attract our development to prospective office workers and shoppers
and we think we have covered the gambit.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Your liquor license is essential?
Mr. Schostak: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Any questions on the liquor license?
Mr. LaPine: The other restaurants that you are anticipating that are going to go
into the mall, will they need any liquor licenses?
Mr. Schostak: The other restaurants that are planned in the mall, their leases do
not permit them to have liquor. Unless something is changed, I
don't feel at this time they are planning on having liquor.
10589
Mr. Polsinelli showed photographs of restaurant in other locations. He also showed
plans of how the interior will look.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-10 and Petition
*l•► 89-1-2-11 is closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#3-50-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-10 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. ,
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate D. Dennison's
Restaurant within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located on the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 88-9-1-10 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Floor Plan prepared by Roger Sherman Architects Group, Inc.
dated 11-31-88 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan prepared by Roger Sherman
Architects Group, Inc. dated 12-2-88 which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
3) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant including the bar
and patio shall not exceed 312.
4) That public parking spaces should be ten (10) by twenty (20) feet
per vehicle.
`` 5) That signing will be needed at the drive located between "Marriott
Courtyard" and "Mid-Rise Hotel" (opposite Holiday Inn), which in
turn will necessitate the creation of an opening from the parking
lot in front of Mid-Rise to the main lot. This opening should be at
the east end of Mid-Rise parking.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surounding uses in the area.
4) That the subject restaurant will provide for a a variety of eating
experiences within the Laurel Park Place.
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.
10590
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
#3-51-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-11 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. ,
requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in
conjunction with a proposed D. Dennison's restaurant to be located
within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Mall located at the northwest
corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-1-2-11 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the specific and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That a Class C License is a normal accessory use to the principal
New
use within which it is proposed to be utilized.
4) 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, Fandrei
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei: I find it difficult to support this petition because we now will
have two liquor licenses within that 1000 foot separation. One I
can see waiving but not two.
10591
Mr. LaPine: Let the record show the reason I am voting no is I have no objection
to the liquor license but I do feel the petitioner has a license in
escrow and I feel that license should be used before an additional
license is issued.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We will be hearing Items 7 and 8 on the agenda together because they
also pertain to a restaurant and liquor license at the same
location.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next items on the agenda are Petition
89-2-2-17 by Trapp Associates Ltd. requesting waiver use approval to
construct a restaurant to be located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between I-96 (I-275) and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 7 and Petition 89-2-2-15 by Trapp Associates Ltd. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction
with a restaurant to be located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between I-96 (I-275) and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
7.
8:55 p.m. : Commissioners Fandrei, Kluver and Tent left the meeting to attend the
City Council's Public Hearing.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: The letters I will read will pertain to Petitions 89-2-2-17 and
89-2-2-15. We have a letter in our file from the Division of Public
Safety, Division of Fire, stating they have no objection to its
development. We also have a letter in our file from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the signage as proposed will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of signs
NOW
and excess sign area. There is also in our file a letter from the
Department of Public Safety, Traffic Bureau, stating the following:
(1) The parking spaces are too narrow, being 9 foot rather than the
necessary ten foot width. (2) The general layout is acceptable. (3)
No sidewalk along 7 Mile Road has been provided.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are asking for liquor license and restaurant. Could you please
tell us what type of restaurant?
Gerald Hornbeck, 2221 S. Ashton Court, Nashville, Tennessee: The Cooker Bar &
Grill is based in Nashville, Tennessee. It is a mid-scale casual
family restaurant that specializes in the type of food which most
people would prepare and make for themselves at home, if they had
the time or inclination or knowledge to do so. We have found a
larger percent of the public is consuming meals away from home and
that has precipated us to develop our concept somewhat away from
theme restaurants to be the type of restaurant that provides good
food service and quality for consumption of meals away from home
rather than for entertainment.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I see here it is going to be 170 seats for dining and 30 seats in
bar and 36 for standing.
10592
Mr. Hornbeck: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: Do you have any renderings tonight?
Mr. Hornbeck: Yes. I have all the materials that were supplied during the study
`, session, which were retained by Mr. Nagy and Mr. Shane. I haven't
brought any new materials.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is this called Cooker Restaurant or Cooker Bar & Grill?
Mr. Hornbeck: Cooker Bar & Grill.
Mrs. Sobolewski: If this restaurant is successful, there will be how many?
Mr. Hornbeck: That will be our tenth.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is this one the only restaurant of this size in either the state
of Michigan or Illinois?
Mr. Hornbeck: It will be the first Michigan restaurant. We have three restaurants
in Ohio and one in Indiana.
Mr. Hornbeck made his presentation at this time.
Mr. Hornbeck: At the study meeting it was brought up that parking immediatedly
adjacent to our restaurant was undersized at 9' x 18' . We have
since submitted back to Mr. Nagy an adjusted parking plan that has
10' x 20' foot stalls immediatedly adjacent to the property around
the restaurant.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many parking places have you increased?
Mr. Hornbeck: We had 19 spaces originally. That was reduced to 17. All the rest
of the parking is a joint venture with Duke Associates.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That will remain the same - 9' x 18'?
Mr. Hornbeck: Yes. The entrance is immediatedly in front of the major parking area
and the restaurant is about 7200 square feet with a stucco exterior
and a green metal roof material with a canopy on top.
Mr. Engebretson: I was under the impression that you were going to alter the
parking accomodations to get a full complement of 10 x 20 foot
stalls. Seventeen seems to be very trivial.
Mr. Hornbeck: The only parking I have jurisdiction over is the area immediatedly
adjacent to the area I am leasing. I don't have the jurisdiction to
address the other parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Is your lease with Duke Associates or Schoolcraft College?
Mr. Hornbeck: It is with Duke.
Mr. LaPine: If I understand what I remember from the study meeting, we discussed
10593
that the reasons we wanted the spaces to be larger on the actual
site was because we felt most of these people will be coming in for
lunch and moving out. The other parking spaces will have people who
will be in the offices and walking to the restaurant and spaces
around the restaurant will be transient people just coming in for
%o" lunch and moving in and moving out and I think that was the reason
we wanted the larger spaces along the restaurant.
Mr. Hornbeck continued with his presentation showing the interior of restaurant.
9:10 p.m. - Commissioners Fandrei, Kluver and Tent returned to meeting.
Mr. Hornbeck: The two signs discussed at the last study session were two building
signs, the monument sign would probably not be approved but the
building signs immediatedly over the front door to identify the
entry to the building and the side sign that faces Seven Mile, would
be the two signs that we would submit for approval.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Bakewell or Mr. Shane, they can have two signs?
Mr. Shane: They can have two wall signs or they can have one wall sign and one
ground sign.
Mr. LaPine: What would be your hours of operation?
Mr. Hornbeck: The hours of operation would be from approximately 11:30 a.m. until
10:30 p.m. , for food service, and midnight for liquor service -
Monday through Friday and perhaps 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. LaPine: Are you open on Sundays?
Mr. Hornbeck: Seven days a week.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am concerned about parking. I have driven through there twice.
What percentage of the first building is occupied?
Mr. Maddox, representing Duke Associates: A little bit over 70%.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I drove through there, the front parking lot looks as if you were
planning on using some of the western parking lot for some of your
parking?
Mr. Maddox: The parking lot for the restaurant would be immediatedly north and
east of the two office buildings. Every time we put a building up
at that location, we do a parking survey and study it to see where
we are at and we are well within the original parking plan.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I drove through the west parking lot, I would say the other 25%
that you are looking for would fill your parking lot and there isn't
going to be room for parking for this restaurant. There isn't a lot
of space left. I would say the space that I saw that was vacant
would be filled by the rest of your tenants.
Mr. Maddox: We did a study recently on the parking. The maximum hours for
parking is 10:00 a.m. and at that time we had 136 parking spaces
unused.
10594
Mrs. Fandrei: Are you speaking about one building that is 70% occupied?
Mr. Maddox: We are talking about total project. The number of vacant spaces
will be more than 136 when the parking lots are fully developed.
Mrs. Fandrei: I find it hard to believe that you will have adequate parking.
Mr. Shane: You might recall when this was first presented to us a few weeks
ago, we did indicate to you the entire site did have a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the number of parking
spaces as well as their size. They did provide for some land
banking if it should be needed and they stipulated that when the
restaurant was constructed, if it was constructed with more seats
than they had originally anticipated, that the third building would
have to be reduced correspondingly in its size to make up for the
additional seats in the restaurant. So they did consider it as one
of the problems that you are having now that (1) the restaurant is
larger than they thought it would be and it is and they will have to
reduce the third building and (2) if it became a problem with
respect to parking, there are some very extensive land banked areas
if the City and the developer determine it should be done. There
are some built-in situations there so if there is a problem, it can
be addressed.
Mrs. Fandrei: I could see that the land banking might solve a problem but not
reducing the size of the third building for this particular
restaurant because there is quite a distance between that third
building and the restaurant. You are talking overall site. I am
concerned about the restaurant and where those people are going to
park.
r•-
Mr. Shane: You will have a redistribution of parking when the third building is
up plus the fact that the petitioner indicated and the gentleman
from Duke also indicated that they would redirect their employees to
another part of the site to get them away from the front by the
restaurant.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I went through the back I found that parking area also was about
three quarters full. If they are directing parking from front
parking lot to back, I see the potential for a problem but the land
bank would help solve part of that, I think.
Mr. Tent: Have we revised the site plan to indicate 10 foot wide parking
spaces?
Mr. Maddox: Yes.
Mr. Tent: So there will be no restaurant parking that will be less than 10
feet.
Mr. Maddox: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I might point out for Mr. Tent's benefit that while you were away
we came to learn there were 17 parking places that were being
increased from 9' x 18' to 10' x 20' . I would like to ask Mr.
Shane if this were a freestanding restaurant, how many parking
�.. places would they be required to provide?
10595
Mr. Shane: They would have to have 118 plus 1 for each employee.
Mr. Engebretson: How many employees will be at this location.
Mr. Hornbeck: I believe there will be 42.
Mr. Engebretson: That is 160. We have a need for 160 parking spaces, 17 or 10% of
which meet the 10' x 20' request that we made, so 90% of the parking
spaces are still 9' x 18' .
Mr. Maddox: The project, when it was originally planned, was planned as a mixed
use project and as an office project we obtained a variance and the
project was designed around that variance. At this point, we could
not alter all the parking spaces on that site.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that Mr. Maddox but I believe, if you will recall,
we discussed this last time and we talked about the possibility of
segregating some additional spaces and making them larger. We
weren't asking you to increase the size or the spaces of all of them
but we were asking you to accomodate the minimum spaces needed for
the restaurant to be 10' x 20' . You have done only seventeen.
Mr. Shane: One other point I wanted to make and failed to before was that part
of the time this restaurant is going to be in operation the office
buildings will not be fully occupied, probably the only time would
be at noon time but in the evening there are going to be ample
parking spaces on site. The parking may not all be 10' x 20' but it
will not be the commercial type of situation where you will have
people coming and going. I think if this were a shopping center,
the problem would be different than in the instant case where office
buildings are the principle use.
Mr. Hornbeck: Of all the criteria we use to measure the feasibility of a project,
parking is one that has first concern. As a prospective business if
I am not able to allow people to access my facility, I don't have
the capacity to generate sales and we have taken the parking issue
most seriously as we have with all of our projects and I don't know
what calculations the City ended up with but I know for our use that
what we need is parking for the 145 automobiles. That is the
parking needed for us to be able to generate the type of sales
volume we do at our other units, we have been satisfied with the
relationship thus far with Duke and what they have proposed in terms
of issuing parking regulations for all members of the office
buildings, including the restaurant, to designate where they would
park away from the main flow of traffic created by the restaurant.
Mr. Kluver: The parking issue seems to be a little sticky. I appreciate
what Mr. Shane says and it seems to be an amiable solution but it
also indicates to me that within this project, as it first started,
we made a number of serious concessions. Concessions by having this
land bank in a bank of area that would decrease the third building
if it were to be built to correct the parking. I look at this
project and I am very impressed with the development of it. The
restaurant portion, which is a little bit larger than originally
10596
conceived, indicates there should be 118 plus 42 parking spaces. I
would like to see and look at the project as it develops, that the
parking that is associated with the restaurant be segregated from
the balance of the parking that supports the project. It would seem
logical. If you were to develop the restaurant across the street,
14w. you would have segregated parking which would support the
restaurant. I appreciate the fact that the office workers won't be
parking there. To me this is conjecture. I would like to see that
contiguous development support the same parking that supports the
restaurant. I really feel that the parking issue has not been
fully resolved.
Mr. McCann: I too have concerns about the parking. Can you estimate where the
clientele is going to be coming from? One of the major concerns
here has been that the after work parking should not be as great
because people will be leaving so it will be your noon time parking
for lunch. Can you give us an estimate of what the impact is going
to be of outside parking as opposed to the traffic you expect to be
walking in from the office buildings?
Mr. Hornbeck: We usually generate only a moderate amount of traffic from the
office buildings. When the restaurant first opens, the people who
are working in the offices will use the facility for two or three
weeks with some regularity and after that, they find they need more
variety and usually if you have a population of say 1,000 office
workers, on an ongoing basis we would only deal with about fifty of
those people in a day but we have found, through most of our
research, the peak time for office parking to be used is before
lunch. When the lunch hour hits, there are a number of people who
get into their cars and go somewhere else to eat away from the
... office. On a regular basis, they eat away from their office more
regularly than they eat at their office or, in our case, a
restaurant that would be in the parking lot of their office. In
terms of the amount of people we generate, we generate between 450
and 500 people for our lunch and I am not certain what the
statistics are in Detroit but we usually work on the range of 2.3
people a car and we try to vary what our parking is based on that.
Mrs. Fandrei: Back to the parking again. What we have seen happen in the
immediate area is if there is a shortage of parking, patrons park on
the lawn or anywhere they can fit their vehicles.
Mr. Hornbeck: I don't think that will be possible with this development because
the way it is controlled and landscaped right now, I don't think
they can make their way up onto the protected land there.
Mr. Maddox: We have studied the parking with the restaurant there and with the
buildings and at the peak parking time in the morning, there are
over 130 car spots available. We still have a third building to
build and more parking to build and we still have that opportunity
to adjust for problems if they occur.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I went by this property, I would like to know if you are putting
sprinklers in on this first building? I didn't see any.
10597
Mr. Maddox: Yes. At this time of year it is sometimes difficult to see but it
is all sprinklers.
Mr. Tent: Maybe I misunderstood. The restaurant requires 160 parking spaces?
Will 160 of those parking spaces be 10' x 20' .
Mr. Maddox: No.
Mr. Tent: Well I couldn't support this proposal because the fact is even
though this is going to be a fine restaurant, the parking is
inadequate. There is going to be a lot of customers driving
probably big cars. Do you know what it costs to repair door damage
from parking lots? I don't see how anybody can come into this City
and cut down on their parking places just to make up the difference
in their parking and I would not support this project, while I think
it is good, it looks like it has great possibilities, but if you
can't comply with the 10' x 20' parking bays for the part associated
with this restaurant, I could not support this petition and I hope
my fellow commissioners feel the same way. I support Mr. Kluver's
recommendation about a section set apart for the restaurant with a
parking area exclusively for the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: I think we are getting hung up here on parking and I don't really
believe, as I see the project, that there is a problem with parking.
You can't hold the petitioner responsible for the fact he can't
supply the 10' x 20' spaces. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in their
wisdom, why they did it I do not know, granted a variance for the
parking for this whole project. Why they did it, that is beyond the
point. It is there and has been approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. I think the petitioner brought up a very good point. The
only time there is going to be a problem at this restaurant is going
to be from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. , when there will be the biggest
lunch time traffic. There are going to be a lot of people leaving
there to go to other locations to have their lunch and people will
be coming there that will park in the parking spots that will be
vacant by the people leaving the project. We requested he increase
the parking spots around the restaurant to 10' x 20' and he did and
I think that will accommodate the cars that are going to be coming
in for just a quick bite and getting out of there. I personally
don't see any problem with parking. From four o'clock on when the
people start leaving the office complex, he will have more than
enough spaces. I don't see the big hang-up on the parking. You are
worried about someone getting their door banged. They can take two
spaces once the office buildings are closed.
Mr. Morrow: I would like some clarification as to what the Zoning Board of
Appeals did give them by way of a variance. Was it based on the
mixed use project? Was it based on offices? Was it based on the
C-2 property and on the office site? This may be one way of backing
into nine foot wide parking spaces, when seventeen are undecided and
90%, as Mr. Engebretson pointed out, are nine foot wide. We have
always supported the fact that in office, nine foot may work but
when you get in a commercial area, we have been very resolute in ten
foot wide spaces. I guess my question is, was that taken into
`r.
10598
consideration with the variance because, as Mr. LaPine pointed out,
if there is a variance granted, they are within the ordinance.
Mr. Shane: When the Zoning Board of Appeals acted they waived the parking
`. numbers and they waived the parking sizes for the entire project
including the restaurant. As I indicated before, there were two
stipulations. One was that the spaces would be double striped,
which often helps to guide people in the space. The second one was
that if the restaurant turned out to be larger than what the first
indication was, that they would have to cut down on the size of the
third building so that the numbers would work out. The answer is
yes. They waived it for the restaurant and the office buildings.
Mr. Kluver: They waived the nine foot bays but they didn't waive the number.
Mr. Shane: They reduced the number and they required the petitioner to set
aside a certain amount of area in a strategic area to put in
additional parking if it is needed in the future. They waived both
the number and the size.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, are you satisfied with the landscaping.
Mr. Shane: Yes I am.
Gus Tawil, 18830 Nola: I am a director for Enough is Enough and President of
Melody Manor Civic Association. As you all know, Melody Manor is
the closest residential subdivision to this restaurant.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is directly across I-275?
NIOW
Mr. Tawil: Yes, on the south side. I am here to voice our objection to having
a restaurant on Seven Mile for four reasons. First, Seven Mile Road
from Farmington to I-275, except for the area around K-Mart, we do
not have retail stores, which I am assuming that restaurant would be
considered retail. If we give permission to have a restaurant on
Seven Mile, we will be opening a bag of worms for all kind of
retail. We would like to see Seven Mile, south of Farmington Road
all the way to Haggerty, remain as residential and office
buildings. As you know, secondly, the City paid quite a bit of
money during the negotiations with Mr. Shenkman when he tried to
have two chunks of land on both sides of Newburgh near Seven Mile
zoned C-2. The City paid quite a bit of money to having that office
buildings because we did not want to have retail along Seven Mile
Road so if we did all this, we should be able to do the same thing
in the land that belonged to us through Schoolcraft College.
Thirdly, we don't believe that there is a need for a restaurant in
that area. Presently you might think that area needs a restaurant
but by checking with Victor and Laurel Park, along a one mile
radius, we found Victor is going to have a luxury restaurant inside
the Embassy Suites. They are going to have one or two free standing
restaurants and two or three cafeterias in their offices. If you go
south to Six Mile and Newburgh, the presentation before this item
you heard about the Dennison's, the Max & Erma's, the Marriott Court
10599
and the Marriott. We are talking about four to possibly six luxury
restaurants. You have the Holiday Inn and across the street, they
have the new Ground Round Restaurant. To the north of this
restaurant, you have Novi Hilton and to the west of it you have
Northville Charley's. If you look at it five years from now, you
`W► might end up with approximately ten luxury restaurants within a one
mile radius from this. The fourth reason is the traffic. That
strip of land between I-275 and Haggery Road is already congested
even though, by the admission of the gentleman, the building is only
70% occupied and the second building only 5% occupied. When those
buildings get completed and they dump their traffic on that section
between I-275 and Haggerty, along with CBS Fox and the exits and
entrances on I-275, you are creating quite a bit of traffic in that
section. We appeal to you to reject this as a restaurant on Seven
Mile Road. We don't have any problems seeing them having a
cafeteria inside the building but as far as having a restaurant on
Seven Mile Road, we prefer not to have that.
Mr. Kluver: Are you speaking as a citizen or are you representing the civic
association? Are you a member of the board that is representing
them in an official capacity or is your objection made as a citizen?
Mr. Tawil: I am a director of the Enough is Enough Committee. I am spokesman
for the committee. As far as the civic association, the meeting was
cancelled last week.
Mr. Kluver: Were you authorized by letter to speak for the board?
Mr. Tawil: When you are in a civic association, you don't always get a letter
of authorization.
r..
Mr. Kluver: I just wanted to make that clear. You basically represent yourself
and there is no official letter from the board?
Mr. Tawil: I am President of the association.
Mr. Kluver: There is no letter stating you are representing all the people in
the area?
Mr. Tawil: Of course not.
Mr. Engebretson: Gus, are you aware that the zoning there is C-2.
Mr. Tawil: Yes, I am aware but if we succeeded with Shenkman, I am sure we can
succeed in negotiating our prime land. I would like to see that
property be turned over to Schoolcraft College.
Mr. LaPine: Gus, I was kind of surprised, when we heard the case when
Schoolcraft College and P. R. Duke & Associates wanted to put up a
million square foot, how does your association feel about that,
being that they didn't come here and voice any opinions?
Mr. Tawil: We didn't even know about that until we read it in the paper.
Mike Fandrei, 19578 Fitzgerald: I just need a couple of points clarified, through
the chair to the Duke representative. I thought he said that the
`- buildings were 75% occupied and now Gus said 70% and 5%.
10600
Mr. Maddox: First building is 70% and second building is 5% occupied.
Mr. Fandrei: So basically you have one building that isn't occupied. You have
now available 130 spaces at ten o'clock?
`. Mr. Maddox: Our total long range parking study when all three buildings and
restaurant are occupied, there will be 136 spots available for
parking at ten o'clock.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You do need a liquor license to carry on this business?
Mr. Hornbeck: Yes. We realize about 12% to 15% of our sales from liquor.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do all your restaurants have liquor licenses?
Mr. Hornbeck: Yes they do.
Mr. Engebretson: During the last time, you gave us the percentages of sales in
food vs liquor.
Mr. Hornbeck: As a company we serve 88% food products and 12% liquor products as
the average. That might change 4% to 5% per individual restaurant.
Mr. Tent: I would like to go on record that I think it is a mighty fine
restaurant and I think the presentation was well done. I have no
objection to a restaurant but I do have an objection to the
inadequate parking in the area and I feel that is a major concern
and that is why I will vote no against it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to be on record that I am opposed to the use of this
r.. land for this particular purpose. However, since the zoning exists
which permits this use and since the Zoning Board of Appeals has
permitted the use of the smaller than desired parking bays, I will
have to support the petition even though I oppose the use of this
land in this manner.
Mr. Kluver: I want the record to show I am opposed to the development of this
restaurant. My opposition is a protest vote in the way the parking
situation is handled within what I consider a very viable project.
I don't think the parking situation as allowed by the ZBA with the
size of this project, when it is open at completion, will really
satisfy the needs.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petitions 89-2-2-17 and
89-2-2-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#3-52-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
20, 1989 on Petition 89-2-2-17 by Trapp Associates Ltd. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a restaurant to be located on the south
side of Seven Mile Road between I-96 (I-275) and Haggerty Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-2-2-17 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
10601
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al, as revised, dated 3-17-89, as
revised, prepared by Trapp Associates Ltd. , Architects which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
+ur
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L2 dated 2-28-89 prepared by
Michael J. Dul, Landscape Architect, which is hereby approved, shall
be adhered to and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permenantly maintained in a
healthy condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plans marked sheet A3 and A4 dated
2-27-89 prepared by Trapp Associated Ltd. , Architects, which are
hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
4) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant including the bar
seating and standing spots shall not exceed 236.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
ajacent and surrounding uses in the 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek,
Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhbnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
#3-53-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on march
20, 1989 on Petition 89-2-2-15 by Trapp Associates Ltd. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction
with a restaurant to be located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between I-96 (I-275) and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
council that Petition 89-2-2-15 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That petition 89-2-2-17 proposing to construct a restaurant on the
subject property be approved.
10602
2) That the Class C liquor licensed operation shall be developed in
accord with the proposed restaurant floor plan as set forth on the
Plan marked sheet A14 dated 2-27-89 prepared by Trapp Associates
Ltd. , Architects.
AMP
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
`ftv accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-2-8-7 by Michael C. Delaere for approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing theater located
on the north side of Plymouth Road between Sears Drive and Tech Center
Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That Site Plan #8819, Sheet A-1 dated 2/8/89 prepared by
Morison-Delaere Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That building Plan #8819, Sheet A-5 dated 2/8/89 prepared by
Morison-Delaere Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That this approval is subject to all conditions of the variance
granted with Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 8812-183.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#3-54-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-2-8-7 by Michael C. Delaere for approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing theater located
on the north side of Plymouth Road between Sears Drive and Tech Center
Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26 be denied for the following
reasons:
10603
1) The petitioner has filed to affirmatively show that the proposed use
is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning
44isr 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 use as is being proposed.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#3-55-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-3 by Alex Fedrigo requesting waiver use
approval for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and boats on
property located west of Stark Road between Glendale Avenue and the C. &
0. Railroad in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-1-2-3 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates,
Architects marked sheet D-1 which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan dated 3-7-89 which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy
condition.
3) That the RV storage area shall be hard surfaced with asphalt within
two (2) years of the date of this resolution.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
10604
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it
was
#3-56-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to add a requirement for a sign
to be erected on proposed property to be rezoned.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
##3-57-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the
City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone Lot 351 of
Supervisor's Livonia Plat #6 located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Middlebelt Road and Clarenceville Cemetery in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S.
AND THAT, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with
the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #1543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-58-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.50 of Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding signs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`a.
10605
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-59-89 RESOLVED that, 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 VII of
the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by
changing the designation of property located west of Newburgh Road,
north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from
Industrial to Medium Density Residential.
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.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#3-60-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-1-8-6 by Michael Vorgitch for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a bottle storage addition to an existing building located on
the south side of Ann Arbor Road at Knolson in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 31, subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 89-160, Sheet 1, dated 1/24/89 by Architectural
Dimensions is approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 89-160, Sheet 2, dated 1/24/89 by Architectural
Dimensions is approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan dated 3-13-89 by the Planning Department is
approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That approval of this petition is subject to the petitioner being
granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals as required by
Section 18.21 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-61-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-2-8-8 by Al Margolin for approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to remodel the front of an existing building located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington and Fairlane in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
10606
1) That Site Plan SP-1 dated 2-16-89 prepared by The Collaborative is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan A-1, A-2 and A-3 dated 2-16/89 prepared by The
Collaborative is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That any new signs be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-62-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Jan Sign on behalf of
Drugland for a wall sign located at 18975 Middlebelt Road, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the wall sign for Drugland prepared by Jan Sign Co. is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the existing window signs be limited to not more than 25% of
the total store window area.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 575th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on March 14, 1989 was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
James C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST• 411 ' /..
Donald Vyhnale Chairman
jg
Now