Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-03-08 13323 MINUTES OF THE 680th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS '41.1. HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 8, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 680th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei Raymond W. Tent Members absent: Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a 'Now preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Morrow: If you will notice on the agenda tonight seven of the ten public hearing items are those brought forth by the City Planning Commission, which means that once we have explained to the audience what we are meeting on we will be going directly to the audience for their input as far as the public feedback, so if you are here tonight to speak to one of those items it would be appreciated if you would move down to the area of the rostrums on either side so we can keep the meeting moving right along. On that I will ask Mr. McCann to read the first item. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-1-3 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Deering, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from C-2 to RUF. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. 13324 Mr. Morrow: This is one that the City Planning Commission has brought forward. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Chris McDonald: I am here representing Mrs. 011ar. She is the owner of the property. Her daughter brought her. She has cancer. She is very sickly. This is a surprise to her. She does not know why. She is here to ask you why you are petitioning to change the zoning. There are some questions. Number one, what is not represented is if you go left you see a home. It is on a separate piece of property. It is zoned C-2 and has been for many, many years. Mrs. 011ar owns the property behind the second pink building just above where it says C-2. Her property goes all the way back to the RUF. What they are proposing to do is take 65 feet of her property, which has been zoned C-2 since she has owned the property and she is the original owner. She built the building that you see there. They are petitioning to take 65 feet of her property from C-2 and to change it to an RUF. We are confused by that because I believe RUF is 1/2 acre and neither one of those properties represent 1/2 acre. If you have questions, maybe I can help Mrs. 011ar. Mr. Morrow: That is why we are holding a public hearing. We will take your questions one at a time. First of all, John did we serve a notice that went out not only in the paper but also directly to the property owners? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. The property owners did get notice of the proposed change of zoning by common mail. N.. Mr. Morrow: Do we have a service to the lady in question? Do we have a record of that? Mr. McDonald: She received a notice. It is not a question that she was not served notice. It is a question of why. It is a surprise to her. She has owned this property for 40 years. Mr. Morrow: Basically, I will certainly let the staff also address it, but if you look at the zoning map you will see that the residential zoning is on that line, the red line to the south. In other words, one of the properties is already in a residential zoning classification and all the abutting properties in there are in a residential classification. So it is the intent of the City to put the zoning in the use it is currently at, particularly as it moves along the line so it is kind of squared off with the rest of the residential. That is the reason for it. John, is that a fair statement? Mr. Nagy: I think you have said it pretty well. This is really what we look at as a housekeeping chore. To begin with the residential lot on Deering Avenue, as you pointed out, has been used residentially and developed residentially. It is a separate lot of record. The house therefore is non-complying with respect to the C-2 zoning classification so by removing what we determined to be surplus commercial zoning, it is not needed to support any of the commercial development in the area, so to remove the commercial `r 13325 zoning really brings the home and that lot into compliance with the appropriate zoning classification therefore making it more of a conforming than a non-conforming situation. Therefore, in establishing the new commercial zoning line at the south property ``r line of the residential property, it seemed more logical to us to continue that line across the area so as to minimize the encroachment of the commercial zoning that does now occur, in back of not only the subject lot to the zoning change but also the lot on the east side of Cardwell Avenue. The commercial zoning then would penetrate into the backyards of those two residential uses. There is no need for that. It is not used for off-street parking. It is not needed to support off-street parking for the commercial building on Joy Road so we have determined that is also surplus commercial zoning and not needed, so therefore we are trying to make the commercial line more uniform with respect to the depth north of Joy Road. That was the logic behind it. We think it is more compatible to the neighborhood. It is not needed to support commercial development or off-street parking. That is really the motive behind this. Mr. McDonald: The problem is for the more than 40 to 50 years she has owned the property and there has been parking in front of her building. I have to take umbrage to what you said about it not being needed to support parking. She is now trying to sell the building. Everyone who has come before Engineering and Planning has been told the same thing. She has parking in front of the building and now they don't want parking in front of the building. They want parking developed behind the building. You said you don't see a use for it but commercially the problem we are having is just that. Now anybody 'tow that looks at this property for sale has to go in the back and see how much parking they can get behind the building itself. I am not going to dispute if you want to change the home where it is commercial to residential, yes I am not going to dispute that now you would have parking behind the home but the problem she is having in selling the property, you are taking more and more commercial use away from her land and she can't sell the building. Right now this building is assessed at $210,000 or $215,000. It has been for sale for nine months because of what the City wants. The best offer we have had on this property is $130,000. You are putting more burdens on the use and the sale of the property. You say there is no use for it back there but you have now created more use in the 40 years. Mr. Morrow: Basically what we are saying in a nutshell, we said earlier we are trying to put it in a use that is conforming to adjacent property owners and we also feel it is not a good practice to have commercial in the backyards of people already living there. We are not changing anything. Mr. McDonald: But once you change the commercial on the one I agree. What you are saying is we want to make this now residential. It is zoned commercial. When you say you want to clean house, you are just going to make that line right across. Why does she have to take the burden of you changing the property to the left just to clean up your lines as you just said to now put commercial behind '`"' residential, you are changing the property to the left. 13326 Mr. Morrow: That is absolutely correct. That is what we are proposing to do. We don't know how it is going to come out. Mr. Tent: To the petitioner's representative, you said the home had been on Now the market for nine months? Mr. McDonald: No, the commercial building. Mr. Tent: During this period of time how many offers did you have on it because you already had the parking in the back? The zoning was already set. There was no change at that particular time. Did any of those people express an interest in buying that property including the rear parking? Mr. McDonald: They made an offer of $130,000. That is the best offer we had. Mr. Tent: Even with the commercial property as it stands right now? Mr. McDonald: Yes even with the commercial property. Mr. Tent: So by cutting it in half do you feel that is going to help you? Mr. McDonald: No it is going to hurt us. It is putting a a further burden on parking behind the building. Mr. Morrow: Is there parking there now? Mr. McDonald: Yes sir there is some parking but because the City wants to completely remove all parking in the front area, the parking behind fir. the building is going to have to be extended but it can't be extended if you are going to remove the commercial classification from it. Correct me if I am wrong. Mr. McCann: In that rear 65 feet Mr. Nagy is there parking currently in that area? Mr. Nagy: No there is not. Mr. McCann: He would have to come back before the Planning Commission in order to put parking back there anyways. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. McCann: So at this point there hasn't been any parking. We have to determine whether, in fact, if he did come back under C-2 use whether we would let him put parking in two homes' backyards, which I don't feel would be good planning anyways so I don't see a problem. Mr. LaPine: John, I want to get something straight in my head. The property on the corner of Deering and Joy Road, directly behind there is a house. Is that property and the property to the east, the property we are talking about here tonight, is that all by the same owners? Mr. Nagy: No. 13327 Mr. LaPine: It is by two different owners. Let me ask this question. Let's assume we do change the zoning tonight and that 65 foot lot becomes a residential lot. If it is sold as a residential lot, how do you get to that lot? Mr. Nagy: The area of the proposed zoning change, the 65 feet, is not a lot of record. The overall property actually extends from Joy Road on the north to the line that goes across the third lot north. It is zoned in two different zoning classifications. The zoning district that separates RUF from C-2 is not the subject property here representing the property line. It is just an arbitrary zoning line. Mr. LaPine: I guess what I am trying to find out John if that goes to RUF, which it is not going to be developed because it is not a half acre, it would probably have to be an R-1 lot to build a home. My question is if someone bought that and wanted to build a house on it, how do they get to the lot? Mr. Nagy: The only way you would be able to is to develop an easement across the commercial portion to get to the rear. Mr. LaPine: That is the problem I see. I understand what we are trying to do and I agree. I don't want any more commercial development behind the residential homes that are there now. I think you can understand that. If you lived there, you wouldn't want any commercial property behind your home. That is what we are trying to do is even off the dividing line where we have the commercial so if anything is developed on that property it would be a home and — we won't be encroaching upon the homeowners. You as a homeowner, if you lived there, you wouldn't want anybody encroaching upon your property. I can also see your point of view as far as the parking. I guess what I don't understand, I think what Mr. Tent was trying to bring out, if you could not sell the property in nine months where you already have that parcel of land as part of your overall parcel, then what is going to keep that from being sold if that isn't part of it. If someone wanted that parcel then you could have sold it nine months ago. You could have sold the whole parcel as commercial and then they would have had to come back before us and try to get us to allow them to use it for parking so if it hasn't been able to be sold in nine months with that parking as part of the parcel, how are we hurting you by rezoning this? Mr. McDonald: Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. We are having trouble selling the property as it stands and you are putting a further burden on it. Mr. LaPine: You haven't been able to sell it in nine months and you haven't had a burden on it. You haven't had a burden on it in nine months, have you not? You have had one offer right? Mr. McDonald: We have had one offer in nine months because the City will not let us use it as it is presently used. There is parking along the front. They want to eliminate that. `o. Mr. LaPine: How big of a building is it? 13328 Mr. McDonald: 4800 square feet. Mr. LaPine: How many parking spaces would be required for 4800 square feet? Nur Mr. Nagy: By the zoning ordinance the requirement is 26. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, if we were to rezone that northern parcel, am I correct in recalling that we just passed an ordinance that would not allow that to be developed as a residential piece of property because it doesn't have direct access to a road? Mr. Nagy: We clarified that section of the ordinance that says residential property should front on a publicly dedicated street, yes. Mrs. Fandrei: So this could not in any way, shape or form be built on as a residential piece of property? Mr. Nagy: In my opinion the ordinance, right now, works a hardship on this property. There is already residentially zoned property on this parcel of record so it does work a hardship and I think it is grounds to take an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals to try to get a variance to allow the construction of a home on this property. Mrs. Fandrei: It is not likely. From what I read in the ordinance it is not likely that this is going to be able to be developed residentially. Mr. Nagy: I disagree. I think this is a genuine hardship on this property owner to have the residual residentially zoned property on the back ,,` of their property and not be able to use it. I think it is a good case for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mrs. Fandrei: If we are not allowing this property owner to park in the front, how much space is there in the rear for parking? Mr. Nagy: I don't know that the City is not. The gentleman says that but I don't know that the City is not allowing the front to be used for parking. I think what the City is saying you cannot park in a public right-of-way. Certainly if they can comply with the off-street parking in the front, they are entitled to park in front. Our study shows that there is enough room to park at least 20 cars or more in the back of that building between the area of the building itself and the proposed rezoning line. Mrs. Fandrei: I looked at this property today but I think with what is coming up with the property being on the market, the questionable property parking, etc. I would like to table this until we can look at this a little more in depth. I feel we are giving a hardship to this individual if we do rezone it. I would like to go back and look at it with this new information. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against this petition? 13329 Edward Rood, 8885 Cardwell: I am here tonight for number 2 but number 1 affects me too. My property abuts their property. I am the very first house on Cardwell. Since they are rezoning and putting a wall up, I would like to see it rezoned. They do have enough parking the same *ft.y as the bump shop does. Mr. Morrow: So if I am following you correctly sir you are in favor of the rezoning? Mr. Rood: Yes sir I am. I have lived there for almost 19 years now and I have seen race cars, motorcycles, everything run in back of our property. If they did rezone it, different residents would be more than willing to buy so much of the property to go with theirs. Mr. Morrow: We were certainly aware of some of your past problems and that is one of the reasons we are looking at this particular piece of property. Based on that I am going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. McCann: First a question to Mr. Nagy. It appears that the first house under the subject petition, the house is set back quite a bit. It almost abuts the now commercial property, correct? Mr. Nagy: Yes that is correct. Mr. McCann: Can you give us an estimate how many feet between the house and the rear property line on that particular property? Mr. Nagy: I would estimate it would be 25 feet to 30 feet. rOr There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #3-49-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-1-3 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Deering, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from C-2 to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-1-1-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-conforming use status of the subject Lot 3. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will further limit the extent of commercial zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the existing uses and zoning districts in the area. 4) That the possibility of using that ever as a commercial use or expanding the commercial use back into the residential area would have tremendous hardship on the neighbors and the only appropriate use would be a residential use if it were ever to be used for any `o. other type of use. 13330 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. \r. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: Fandrei ABSENT: Engebretson, Alanskas Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-1-4 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Cardwell, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Morrow: We will go directly to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition may come forward. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-1-4 closed. *r On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##3-50-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-1-4 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Cardwell, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-1-1-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a uniform zoning classification for the subject property. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning classification which provides for lot sizes similar to the subject lot. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. `a.. 13331 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-1-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #959-93, proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from C-1 and C-2 to P and from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Morrow: This again is like the prior two petitions. We are trying to put in the zoning classification to what it is currently being used for. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-1-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-51-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-1-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #959-93, proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from C-1 and C-2 to P and from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Nagar Council that Petition 94-1-1-5 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for a P, parking classification on all of the off-street parking area and a uniform C-2 zoning classification for the entire building group. 2) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for zoning classifications more in keeping with the uses of the subject properties. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-1-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1018-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Fitzgerald in the South 1/2 of Section 5 from PL to R-3. Mr. Morrow: Item number 4 is being withdrawn tonight. It is a petition whereby the City was contemplating putting it back into a residential type `r. 13332 of use and selling it to someone but subsequently it was determined by the Fire Department that site had to remain for a future fire department site because of the logistics of the area. Based on that input from the Fire Department and from the City Council, we are going to withdraw Item number 4 tonight and cease all action on this particular site and leave it in a future fire station zoning. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, it was #3-52-94 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 94-1-1-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1018-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Fitzgerald in the South 1/2 of Section 5 from PL to R-3, and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-2-4 by Chinese Family Buffet requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in an existing building located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also Noir received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objection to the proposal, however, the following items should be noted: 1. The existing dumpster enclosure that extends out from the rear wall of the building has interior dimensions of 7'x8'9" and may be too small to enclose the dumpsters and grease barrels required for a use like this. The enlargement of the dumpster enclosure previously proposed by Outback Steakhouse and the addition of gates would be highly recommended. 2. The alteration of this space to accommodate the restaurant use will likely include new rooftop mounted equipment that may require screening. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner with us tonight? Jim Krupa: I am the architect who prepared the plans for this particular petition. I would like to introduce also to you people that have accompanied me here tonight: Mr. and Mrs. Wong, who are going to be the restaurant owners are here to answer any questions specific to the operation of the restaurant. Carmen Henderson and Joseph Jayner are here representing Woodbridge Management, who are the owners of the building and the property. Howard Schwartz from Schostak Brothers is here with us this evening. He is involved 13333 with the transaction and lease agreement. I would like to start by indicating that Mr. and Mrs. Wong presently have a restaurant in operation in Lansing. This has been in operation for approximately one year and as far as their space planning needs and their anticipation of, for example, the refuse and the trash, etc. , it is *low very well understood by them as to what their requirements will be. It is my understanding, after consulting with them, that they will need in addition to the dumpster something for grease and oil and things of that nature. I have been informed that near the back of the property there is a Coney Island there and there have been provisions made for that kind of storage and placement of that particular type of refuse. There was talk about possibly using that area for just that kind of matter coming out of this restaurant space and the dumpster enclosure that is there now would be used for strictly the trash that would be generated by the restaurant. With that the space of the enclosure would probably be adequate but if they would entertain the idea of wanting to have it more convenient for them by locating both facilities or containers within this area, I don't see a problem. I don't think they do either. We are ready to address that if it becomes a requirement even though they have several options to look at, at this point in time. In regards to rooftop units or mechanical equipment, because of the cooking equipment and the wok stove, there will be a ventilation system required. There will be three rooftop ventilators and their dimension off the roof, including the curve, is approximately 40 inches. There will also be a makeup air unit and with its curve, its dimension will be approximately 40 to 42 inches. The building elevation at Middlebelt Road has a parapet that is approximately six to seven feet high, which is, as you may have realized by going down Middlebelt Road, you can't see anything ``w on the roof of that building from that elevation so that in itself would be adequate enough to block any view of any equipment going up there. The only concern would be coming down Middlebelt Road from the south going north and it is from the side that the Taco Bell restaurant is on. Because of the placement of the equipment being further in from the edge of the roof and the parapet wall at that very back point of the building being approximately 36 to 40 inches, with the placement of the equipment back five to six feet, which would be the ventilators on the rooftop, you would have to be almost at your eye level, almost at the edge of the roof, in order to see this equipment with the present condition that is there now. What I wanted to emphasize, all the proposed rooftop equipment would not exceed dimensions that would make it visible from the existing architectural character of the building right now. Besides making those modifications to the exterior there is nothing else being proposed as far as the aesthetics of the building itself. There eventually will be a petition submitted for signage on the building and they will be in the process of preparing that and understand that, of course, it has to be submitted under a separate proposal. Basically, I think the plan indicates a straight forward business operation here meaning it is intended for everyone in the community. It is not going to be high priced and it is not going to be a fast food meaning a carry-out type like a lot of other type businesses. It is a family oriented business 13334 geared price wise, and as far as the environment on the inside, generating that kind of feeling, and I think something very welcome to the City of Livonia and something that the City of Livonia could be very proud of. There are no alcoholic beverages being proposed here and there is no intention on the part of the owners of making '441. that request even at a later point in time. My understanding just by meeting them not too long ago and getting involved in this project, and especially with the restaurant they have right now, they are very good at preparing the food they do and they make that their specialty and want to continue on with that basis in mind. Unless you have any further questions specific to operations. Mr. Tent: Mr. Krupa, you are the architect, is that correct? Mr. Krupa: That is correct. Mr. Tent: My first question is do they intend to lease the building? Mr. Krupa: Yes. Mr. Tent: For how long? Mr. Krupa: Howard will answer that question for you. Mr. Schwartz: The proposed lease is for about 245 months so you are talking about a ten-year term. Mr. Tent: That is with a renewable option, I am sure. Mr. Schwartz: There is an option at the end of the lease that you need to give ' r one year's notice. Mr. Tent: As far as any leasehold improvements, are you going to be supplying all the leasehold improvements within the building? Mr. Schwartz: The leasehold improvements will be part of the tenant's construction. The landlord will be delivering the premises to them in the condition it is in now subject to the approval of the plans by both the Health Department and the City of Livonia. Mr. Tent: I have a question concerning the dumpsters. There had been another restaurant proposed there at one time and they were interested in the location and they had indicated they were going to have a much larger dumpster which would accommodate the restaurant usage and that dumpster was approved by us because it was large enough to handle the facilities. It is indicated here by our Inspection Department that the dumpster you are proposing now wouldn't be adequate. Then I was surprised by the statement made that there is a Coney Island next door and they have a dumpster and maybe you guys can share and we just don't do that here in this City. You have to have that on your own premises. Mr. Krupa: I didn't mean to imply that they would be sharing a facility. What I meant to indicate was that the Coney Island is further down in 13335 the center. It is near the back of the property and there are facilities down at that end of the property for this kind of storage meaning we could select a location down there for this specific storage meaning that trash, paper items, things of that nature, could be placed in a dumpster in this location in the front 4iow of the building where their leased space is and another location for the other matter could be down near the other side of the property where the Coney Island has their storage facility, not meaning they would share it but it would be located near or adjacent to it. Mr. Schwartz: If I may, the current condition that exists is that there is a trash removal and an oil storage right adjacent to the Coney Island and we would put, in the same vicinity, the oil removal where it currently exists for that operation but not to share a retainer. Mr. Tent: Would you have any problem making it the same size as we had on our previous petition? You are going to accommodate the same type of building so the dumpster that had been approved for the previous restaurant location, could you indicate that in that particular spot? Mr. Schwartz: I believe if that was a requirement, yes we could comply to create that environment that you approved previously for the Outback Steak House. Mr. Tent: The reason I say this is I like Chinese food and it is good and I know it will be a good restaurant but the Chinese garbage collection is a lot greater than the regular restaurants so they really do have a lot of disposal and I was just concerned there was *our enough containment for those that don't take it home, that they have a place out in the dumpster to take care of what they are not using. Mr. Schwartz: I think your concern is very valid. We will make certain that the size of the dumpster area is going to be adequate and sufficient to the size of the operation. Mr. Tent: The other question I had to the architect is we have a policy in Livonia where we like to cover our mechanical equipment on the roof. In other words, would you be amenable to add this to your plans to completely cover up the mechanical equipment that is exposed on the roof? Mr. Krupa: I don't see a problem with taking whatever means are necessary to obstruct the view of the mechanical equipment but at this point in time I don't see it will be a requirement because of the dimensions of the equipment being how far they extend to the very uppermost point of the roof. I think the existing parapets on the building itself right now would adequately screen that view. If they do not, and I can provide further documentation meaning a drawing indicating that and if they do not, then we will take measures. Mr. Tent: I will direct that question to our staff to see if they feel this could be accomplished. `.. 13336 Mr. Nagy: I am reasonably confident that the architect is correct on his assessment of the height of the parapets and the mechanical equipment will be screened but to be on the safe side we could put a condition in the approving resolution that in the event the mechanical equipment is visible from the ground line, then it shall be screened. Mr. Schwartz: I think the owners would understand that as a reasonable requirement. Mr. LaPine: Do I understand you to say you don't want a liquor license at this location and you won't be in asking for one at a future date? I thought you told us they do not want a liquor license now or in the future because I would like to put that on the record that you will not be back requesting a liquor license. Mr. Krupa: Chris, it is your intention that you are not going to later request a liquor license? Chris Wong: The restaurant will be non-smoking and no liquor. Mr. LaPine: The front of the building right now is all glass. Is any of that changing? Mr. Schwartz: No, it will still be all glass because they want the openness of that glass. Mr. LaPine: John, Wayne County, when they put the equipment on the ceiling that will be installed so there are no odors coming out of there? Nre" Mr. Nagy: It will all be inspected and have to meet all the air quality requirements imposed by the county. Mr. Krupa: Specific use documents and plans and details have to be submitted to Wayne County Health Department. They take a lot of care in reviewing the ventilation and exhaust system and there are filters that are required. I think it has become much more of a concern in recent years because some of the restaurants, especially with char-broiled type of equipment, etc. There was once a time when you could ride down the road and smell quite a bit of odor from restaurants but you will find that now pretty much eliminated depending upon the county you go into. Many of the health departments of the various counties of the Detroit metropolitan area carefully review that aspect of restaurant design. Mr. LaPine: Is this strictly Chinese? Are they going to have any American food or is it strictly Chinese buffet style? Mr. Wong: It will be only Chinese buffet style. Mr. Morrow: Is this what separates this from the normal Chinese type restaurant? What would a Chinese buffet be? 'Nor, 13337 Mr. Schwartz: A normal Chinese restaurant as we have seen for the past 20 years or more has a menu, a generally limited American menu, and you order from a specific category. The Chinese buffet will have different items each day. There will be some overlap for commonly requested items but they will have featured specials that will be available throughout the day and steam tables which they refurbish them as they are being emptied out so there are a variety of different items available each and every day on a changing basis and it is a one-price buffet type restaurant where you can have a variety of different items. It is a little different format than we are accustomed to seeing in a Chinese food menu. It happens to be a new trend. This is new to the Detroit metropolitan area and this will probably be the third or fourth one open, but the first in Livonia. Mr. Morrow: What is the seating capacity. Mr. Krupa: 210 people. Mr. Morrow: And the ordinance as far as parking is satisfied? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Krupa: Just for the record, we are looking at making a slight revision to the kitchen where some of the storage requirements are going to be a little bit more than what we show right now, meaning if anything the seating count might be reduced slightly. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of the operation of the restaurant? New Mr. Schwartz: 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. , seven days a week. Mr. Tent: What is the name of the restaurant? Mr. Krupa: Chinese Family Buffet. Mr. Tent: The one you have in Lansing is that a Chinese Family Buffet also? Mr. Schwartz: Yes. It is the same type of operation. Mr. Tent: It is not a franchise type of operation? Mr. Schwartz: No. These two folks here have been in the restaurant business with their family for the past 20 years. They are now coming to the Detroit area. They are going to be running the restaurant themselves with their own internal people. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-2-2-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 13338 1#3-53-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-2-2-4 by Chinese Family Buffet requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in an existing building located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast Nor 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-2-4 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to a total of 210 customer seats. 2) That all roof-top mechanical units shall be screened from public view. 3) An adequately sized dumpster shall be provided with a proper enclosure. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##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. `ft. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-2-5 by the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from March 31 through April 10, 1994 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objection to this proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner come forward and tell us what you want to do. Carl Riegal, 31789 Hillbrook: I am a member of the Rotary Club and I'm here on behalf of the Rotary Club. I don't know of any questions. We have used this site for several years. 13339 Mr. LaPine: Nothing has changed from last year. Everything is basically the same? Mr. Riegal: Yes, the same company. %rn. Mr. Morrow: The only question I would have is more for the record. The Rotary does plan on having outside supervision at all times supervising the carnival and what is transpiring there? Mr. Riegal: We try to have someone there all the time. Mr. Morrow: We would like to have that a part of this record. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-2-2-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-54-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-2-2-5 by the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from March 31 through April 10, 1994 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-2-5 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the Nomi, operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored to the north or rear of the shopping center building but no closer to the east property line than 100 feet. for the following reasons: 1) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 3) That the carnival has been held here in the past and there have been no complaints or any problems that have arisen as a result of this carnival. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was 13340 X13-55-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in `.. connection with Petition 94-2-2-5 by the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from March 31 through April 10, 1994 in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-3-1 by Beverly Spranger requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 104, Thomas Elliot Subdivision, located on the west side of Clements Circle W. between W. Chicago and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating since there is an existing 15' sanitary sewer located within the 12' wide easement area in question (along with Detroit Edison facilities) it appears that only a portion of the 12' easement can be vacated to satisfy the building encroachment question. You will note from the mortgage survey submitted by the petitioner that the existing house and breezeway area encroach into the 12' easement by approximately 3' . The garage encroachment is approximately 6 1/2' . Based on the above information the following description would vacate the northerly 4' of the existing 12' wide easement area in the area of the house and breezeway only. We would recommend that none of the existing easement be vacated in the area of the existing garage. For the garage area it is recommended that a revocable license be issued to the property to occupy the easement area with the garage, thus retaining the City's prior interest in the easement for purposes of sanitary sewer maintenance. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here tonight? Beverly Spranger, 1625 Ludean, Highland: It belonged to my mother. My mother owned this house prior to her death last August and it became mine because I am the only daughter. However, my mother bought this house 30 years or more ago. We never knew anything about this and when we got her plot out it does not show anything on there. It had been approved by F.H.A. back then for her to buy the house. However, now they say we can't sell it unless we have this easement vacated. I am not even sure they will vacate it with this revocable license. However, something has to be done because this house has been up for sale for one year and I have had numerous people looking at it but we have not been able to sell it. As it is now it stands to sell for $67,000, which this house has been assessed at $71,000 and there is no way we can sell this house. Unfortunately I am not going to sell mine to move into it. It is a `'` strain. 13341 Mr. Morrow: You do understand what the Engineer has said about the sanitary sewer and they may have to get in there to repair it. It may not ever happen. We are pretty well locked in to at least preserving that portion of the easement. In other words, you can modify the `,`, house if push came to shove but our only guidance would be to approve it in part and deny it in part and work with you the best we can with this revocable license. Mrs. Spranger: Which I agree with. However, I do have one question, how was this house ever approved to be built in the first place over a sewer line? Mr. Morrow: Well that would be difficult for me to answer and I am not sure if Mr. Nagy has the answer. That goes back 40 years and obviously someone issued a building permit and didn't do their homework. Mrs. Spranger: Because of somebody's mistake back then, it puts it on our shoulders and yours. Mr. Morrow: The dilemma is with the lending institution, whoever that might be. Mr. McCann: I think the bank will understand and you shouldn't have a problem. Mrs. Spranger: It is F.H.A. I certainly hope so. Mrs. Fandrei: Mrs. Springer you do riot have an offer where a buyer has gone to a bank? Mrs. Spranger: Yes I had one like that and they turned it down because of the `r.. easement. In fact, they went to three different ones and we lost the sale and had to come down in price again. F.H.A. approved it back then when my mother bought it. However, it doesn't show up on the plot line. As far as I know if F.H.A. approves it, I think we still have a sale. Mrs. Fandrei: So your buyer now has gone to F.H.A. and you are waiting to hear if this is going to be a problem? Mrs. Spranger: As far as I know the buyer will go through with it. Mrs. Fandrei: But you still want us to try to clear this up in the meantime? Mrs. Spranger: We need to have it vacated partially. Mr. Morrow: The principal part of the house is being vacated. Mrs. Spranger: Most it is just the garage that they are concerned with. Everything else is fine. Mr. Morrow: That might satisfy them. There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-3-1 closed. 13342 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-56-94 RESOLVFT) that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-1-3-1 by Beverly Spranger requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 104, Thomas Elliot Subdivision, located on the west side of Clements Circle W. between W. Chicago and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-1-3-1 be approved with respect to the vacating of the northerly 4 feet of the existing 12 foot easement for a distance of 81 feet west of the street right-of-line (front property line) and be denied for the vacating of the balance of the easement in the area of the existing garage for the following reasons: 1) That the portion of the easement affecting the house and breezeway and the area between the house and the front lot line is no longer needed to protect any public utility equipment. 2) That the subject easement can be more advantageously utilized if unencumbered by the easement. 3) That the portion of the easement affecting the garage must be available for access by the City for sanitary sewer maintenance purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Now Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #990-93, proposing to vacate an easement on the south side of Lot 336 and the remaining portion of an easement on the north side of Lot 337, Country Homes Estates Subdivision No. 2, north of Myrna Avenue between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating it is their understanding that the remaining portions of the 6 foot wide, east-west easement across Lot 337 are being vacated pursuant to Council Resolution 989-93. They further state there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement area. Therefore, their office has no objections to the additional vacating proposed. Mr. Morrow: This is another petition by the City Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? 13343 Mrs. Fandrei: John, your notes say you haven't heard from any of the public utility companies. Do we know if there are any easements for the public utilities? Mr. Nagy: There are none according to City records but we have not heard from Now any utility company. Mrs. Fandrei: So it would be safe to act on this without hearing from them. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-2-3-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-57-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 1/990-93, proposing to vacate an easement on the south side of Lot 336 and the remaining portion of an easement on the north side of Lot 337, Country Homes Estates Subdivision No. 2, north of Myrna Avenue between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-3-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public utility. 2) That the subject area can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner unencumbered by an easement. "`. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.46 of Zoning Ordinance #543 pertaining to division or partitioning of lots. Mr. Morrow: This is another petition by the City Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? John, do you want to fill the audience in on what this change is? Mr. Nagy: This is a change to the text of the Zoning Ordinance rather than a map change. What it does is it provides for additional review requirements in the event that there is a lot partition whereby it may meet the minimum requirements of the subject zoning classification but, however, upon a review we find that the proposed lot, while meeting the minimum requirements of the zoning 13344 classification, it is clearly out of size or character with prevailing lot sizes in the neighboring area. In that case the City Assessor will not have the power to grant that lot split but it will require the further review and evaluation and ultimate approval at the City Council level. It will be a requirement for a Nor hearing at the Council level in those cases. Mr. Morrow: Also the City Assessor will come to the Planning Department for their input as it relates to lot splits conforming with the current zoning. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-2-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-58-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.46 of Zoning Ordinance 11543 pertaining to division or partitioning of lots, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more uniformity in lot sizes in residential areas. 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide the City with more control over lot split requests. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance 11543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 1543 relative to the required zoning sign. Mr. Morrow: This is another one by the City Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Again John, would you give us a thumbnail sketch of the reasons for this particular change to the ordinance? Mr. Nagy: After reviewing the requirement of posting property with a sign advising the public of a proposed zoning change, at that time it must be posted 30 days prior to the hearing, it is our assessment that is excessive. By ordinance we only require 15 days advance notice by letters to the property owners and we feel to put a sign up there an additional 15 days prior to that is excessive. Therefore, we are trying to make that sign notification requirement more consistent with the City's actual practice in notifying the property owners. 13345 Mr. Morrow: So based on that the ordinance could cause someone to lose as much as two weeks. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. '44111. Mr. Tent: As far as the sign that will be put up by the petitioner? That is his responsibility? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Tent: We have a removal clause here that it has to be removed within 30 days. Who will enforce that? Mr. Nagy: Ordinance Enforcement. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-2-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #3-59-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1994 on Petition 94-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 1/543 relative to the required zoning sign, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for uniformity in the procedure for public notification of proposals to change the zoning of property located in the City of Livonia. 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide a more reasonable time period for proposed changes of zoning announcement signs to be erected by the petitioner. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Hunters Pointe Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence John or anything you would like to add to this item? Mr. Nagy: Nothing other than what is stated in the notes that the Final Plat is in full compliance and we also have the appropriate letters from �,.. the City Engineer and City Clerk. 13346 Mr. Morrow: So everything is in order. I will ask for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #3-60-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Hunters Pointe Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the Preliminary Plat. 2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat. 3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 678th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 8, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #3-61-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 678th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 8, 1994 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: Engebretson, Alanskas Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 679th Regular Meeting held on February 22, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #3-62-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 679th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 22, 1994 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: Engebretson, Alanskas 13347 Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-8-2 by Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by *ft. Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a structural canopy on the restaurant located at 33500 Plymouth Road in Section 28. Mr. Morrow: This is one we have looked at before. Is the petitioner here? When we studied this particular item you were wishing to put up a canopy in conjunction with the Zoning Board's approval to have an outside dining area. Dennis Miller: I am the Divisional Vice President of Rally's. We had the work session last week and I explained in detail everything that we are trying to do here. I am here to answer your questions. Mr. Morrow: Why don't you go through it for the public and for any Commissioners that weren't there last week. Mr. Miller: Right now at the site we have a small patio area with no tables and really just a flagpole. At the time we got approved last year the City Council in their approval resolution said we could have a waiver use for a Rally's Hamburgers but they didn't want us to have the tables at that time. They said come back after you open and we will take a look at it. Since that time we had a grand opening at the site itself. People from the Council and the Mayor came to the grand opening. We brought up the idea of tables again. At that time they said the tables by themselves don't look like much and "low asked what else we could do. The idea of the canopy came up because we did a site earlier last year in Hamtramck where we had a covered canopy and it came out kind of nice. We threw out that idea at that time so that is how we came to look at it. That is how we really came up with the canopy idea to cover the patio. The patio we built originally was so small to cover that would have been out of context and wouldn't look good at all so we had to expand the size of the patio area itself. We probably doubled the size by expanding it so we could hook up this canopy with our one wing. That is how we got to this point with the canopy. Before we came to the Planning Commission we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got all the necessary variances, one being for two parking spaces by doing the canopy. By doing the canopy in the first place with tables we needed more parking so we took two plus we needed more parking so we got a variance for the parking. We also needed a variance for the canopy encroaching upon the front yard setback and I think we needed a variance for the use itself for outdoor tables because outdoor tables are not allowed. That is how we came to this point right now with the canopy and adding the tables. Mr. Tent: At the previous study we had discussed umbrellas. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, you indicated the reason the canopy came up was because most of the stores have the umbrellas except this Hamtramck fir. 13348 store and one other store because probably one of the City officials mentioned you should have this thing covered and you quickly jumped the gun and said here we will give you a canopy. It wasn't your original idea. It was something you tried to do to satisfy someone that just made some comment off the record. Mr. Miller: That is correct. Mr. Tent: So by doing that you enlarged the patio area, you have the canopy, you have the big red monstrosity, as I would call it. I think what you have now you can sufficiently cover those six outdoor tables and the feeling was just put up umbrellas and when the end of the season comes you can take down the umbrellas and put them away. Is that something you are still amenable to do as opposed to going this long stretch? Mr. Miller: Right, we could do that. Mr. Tent: So this isn't cast in cement? Mr. Miller: No it is not. It was an idea we had from other people's comments. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, if that would be the case, they could go right ahead with the existing proposal with the umbrellas and leave everything as is and there is no need to really go through this portion of the hearing and on to the Council and ZBA, if they are agreeable. They said they would do it. Mr. Nagy: Let me understand. What you are asking is that the canopy be omitted and the umbrellas be used but I don't hear anything saying fiw we will constrict the patio area. Are we still going to remove two parking spaces? Mr. Tent: That was part of my proposal. The fact is if we go back to the original petition, the smaller patio with six tables and the umbrellas and that being the case there is nothing more to be done. Mr. Morrow: Let's clear that up. Let's go back to the petitioner. Are you following Mr. Tent? I guess what he is saying is we will leave it the way it is. You have permission to put tables on the existing patio with umbrellas. Mr. Miller: I don't know if we could get six tables on there but we could sure try. I think we could get four for sure. Mr. Morrow: Work with the existing site plan. Mr. Miller: That is what we were going to do originally. Mr. Morrow: If he is agreeable to that, I guess we will just withdraw the petition on his advice. Is that a fair assessment? For the record are you telling us you request us to withdraw the petition? Mr. Miller: Yes for the record. Nr- Mr. Morrow: John, should we have a motion on that? 13349 Mr. Nagy: The more I think about it, I realize the site is not being altered. I realize the patio can accommodate the four tables and I can also recognize that the Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a relief to allow this serving of food and beverages at tables but what I still am debating in my mind about is when the Planning Commission Nor reported it out, as provided for you in the background notes, the Planning Commission approved it with this serving of food with the six tables but the Council put the restriction on it that there shouldn't be any tables and even though the Zoning Board has granted the relief, the Council resolution still stands that there shall be no serving of food or beverages at the tables. We now have the action by two bodies in conflict with each other, the Council by action of the waiver use saying no and we have action by the Zoning Board of Appeals saying you may. It just seems to me that for all parties concerned that we should forward it on to the City Council and let them deal with their own proposed requirement. At least what Council can do is grant it and it could be implemented because there is now no zoning standard of the ordinance that is an impediment. Mr. Morrow: So what we should do John is send it forward with an approving resolution that they comply with the original site plan based on the Zoning Board's action to allow him to serve the six tables on the existing site plan. Mr. Nagy: I think that is appropriate. Mr. Morrow: All we are asking the Council to do is to approve the outdoor dining with the four tables. Now. Mr. Nagy: Yes, without any changes to the site plan. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-63-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-8-2 by Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a structural canopy on the restaurant located at 33500 Plymouth Road in Section 28, be approved with respect to the outdoor placement of four tables with chairs for outdoor dining and be denied with respect to the site plan alteration to accommodate the canopy and expanded patio area for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 as modified by action of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use represents a unique type of eating establishment not generally found along Plymouth Road in this area. 13350 Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-8-4 by Joseph Hunter requesting approval of all plans required by Section `�► 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property at 16147 and 16161 Middlebelt Road in Section 14. Mr. Miller: This is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Six Mile and Puritan Avenue. The proposal is to build a 3,256 square foot office building. The parking meets the requirements. The landscaping, which they are required to have 15% and it works out to be about 63% so it is conforming. There is a notation on the site plan that says they want to substitute the greenbelt along the residential which is located to the rear of the property for a required protective wall. The elevation plan shows the building will be brick with a stucco type of designer border highlighting the window area. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Hunter would you identify yourself and we may have a few questions for you. Mr. Hunter: I am Joseph Hunter. I reside at 21699 Sheffield. Mr. Morrow: We did discuss the 4 inch brick. Did you talk to your builder about that? Mr. Hunter: My builder is sitting right here. He doesn't know why the architect wrote that. It is going to be normal, real brick not '`r phony brick. I don't know why the architect ever put that in there. I took all the plans myself and took the word "face" off and signed my initials and put the date on every single plan. I don't know what else I can do. Mr. Morrow: You did fine. I knew you were going to clear that up. Mr. Tent: Mr. Hunter, I think you have done an excellent job at that location and we are glad you are coming into Livonia. When do you propose to start building? Mr. Hunter: I am hoping in about six weeks to two months as soon as we get the okay from you. The bank has already approved us. In six weeks to two months we are hoping to start breaking ground. Mr. Tent: So there is no constriction here where you have to have things done in 30 days? Mr. Hunter: I am hoping to be in by August of this year. Mr. Tent: Where I am coming from, would there be any reason to waive the seven days to get our letter to Council? Mr. Nagy: It is not going to Council. It is not in a control zone. 13351 Mr. LaPine: I just want to get on the record that this is a building you are going to be occupying yourself. It is not a dental office. It is a dental laboratory where you make bridges and things of that nature. `. Mr. Hunter: Correct. Mr. LaPine: And your hours are, I think you said from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and it is a five-day a week operation? Mr. Hunter: Right. Mr. Morrow: I think you had indicated your brick would be in the beige variety? Mr. Hunter: Yes light brown to brown variety with dark brown trim with cedar shake type of roof. Mr. Morrow: That would be what color? Mr. Hunter: A brownish, gray roof. It will conform with the trees. We are planning on cutting the trees up like 20 feet to get all the branches off where you will have the affect the building will be sitting there. There are a lot of trees around it and the parking lot is in the back. It is part of my retirement so the better I make that building and the better I keep it, it is for my benefit. It is something I am looking forward to in the future. Mr. Morrow: We can tell you have done a good job. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously Nur approved, it was #3-64-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-2-8-4 by Joseph Hunter requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property at 16147 and 16161 Middlebelt Road in Section 14, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as L-1 dated 3/3/94, as revised, by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plans, defined as A-2 and A-3 dated 3/3/94, as revised, by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the landscaped greenbelt, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance #543 and shall be constructed along the property line abutting any residential zoning district. Mr. Tent: I haven't seen the revised drawing. We took provision to make sure all the roof mechanical equipment will be covered and that the greenbelt, etc. will be sprinkled? Mr. Hunter: Yes there will be a sprinkling system and there is no rooftop equipment. 13352 Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 680th Regular Meeting 'grow & Public Hearings held on March 8, 1994 was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /Ja es C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: / Lee Morrow, Vice Chairman jg `4.1.