HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-08-25 12226
MINUTES OF THE 648th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 25, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 648th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek
William LaPine Raymond Tent James C. McCann
Robert Alanskas
Members absent: R. Lee Morrow
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV, and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also
present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-1-13
by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located
south of Eight Mile Road extending to Norfolk Avenue between Middlebelt
Road and Oporto in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF and R-6 to
R-1 and R-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department would have no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: For the benefit of the audience, I will simply mention this
petition comes about as a matter of housekeeping to change the
zoning districts to more accurately reflect the uses in the area.
The present zoning is rural urban farm and none of those properties
meet the requirements of the rural urban farm district so that has
�-- inbuilt limitations for those property owners and it is to the
12227
property owners' advantage and to the best that we have been able
to determine with no disadvantage to those property owners to make
these changes to have the zoning districts reflect the current
4 uses.
''ter Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, has it ever been determined whether the R-6 lot is
really used as that?
Mr. Shane: No. As we indicated to you the R-6 district, which is a lot
towards the north of the petitioned area, has been zoned R-6 for
some period of time, in fact since 1962, and the City records do
not indicate whether or not the house is a two-family structure,
which would be permitted in an R-6 district. That would be the
reason for it to be zoned R-6 to permit a two-family structure. At
this point in time, it has been impossible for us to determine
that.
Mr. Tent: In our notes here you say the property owner would have received a
notice of this public hearing. If he is not present, would this be
deleted from the petition?
Mr. Shane: The purpose of the public hearing is to determine these kinds of
questions. The property owner would have the best knowledge, of
course.
Mr. Tent: I was just wondering if he had made any contact with your office.
Mr. Shane: No, there has been no contact.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone who
wishes to speak in favor of or opposition to this rezoning.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
118-435-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-13 by the City Planning Commission proposing
to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road extending to Norfolk
Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Oporto in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2 from RUF and R-6 to R-1 and R-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-7-1-13 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide zoning
classifications which are compatible to the average lot sizes in
the area.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning will remove the non-conforming
status of the majority of the lots in the subject area.
3) That the proposed changes of zoning will permit vacant lots in the
area to be developed and larger parcels to be more efficiently
used.
12228
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
4r► resolution adopted.
Mr. LaPine: I have one question to clarify what Mr. Tent was saying. That
means the R-6 will now be re-classified to the new district?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Gniewek: If there was a two-family home there, it would be classified then
as a non-conforming use and would be allowed to exist?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: One of the concerns we had as we moved through this process was
whether or not there would be any unfavorable tax implications to
the property owners and our City Assessor has given us a ruling
that there would be no unfavorable tax implications.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-1-14
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #367-92,
proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Haggerty Road and I-275 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6
from M-1 to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Slew
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. We have
also received a letter from Gary M. Bloom of Bloom & Kavanaugh, who
is the owner of the historic structure which is located at 39040
West Seven Mile Road, directly east of the property involved in
this petition. They state they have talked to Planning and
Engineering and written to the Department of Natural Resources
indicating their concern to make sure that adequate provision is
made for storm water run off in view of the fact that their
property is lower than the proposed property, has an adjacent
stream running on the western border, and that their septic field
is located adjacent to their building on the western side. If
extensive water is dumpted into the stream or the wetlands area
proposed for this project, this could raise the water level or
otherwise affect their waste disposal system. They end by saying
for these reasons, until such time as there are adequate
engineering studies and an adequate plan to dispose of the storm
water run off from these buildings and parking areas without having
an adverse affect on their property, they object to these various
petitions.
Mr. Engebretson: This petition is also brought by the City Planning Commission at
the direction of the City Council. As the large property to the
north of this piece was under consideration for rezoning recently,
12229
the Council directed the Planning Commission to hold this public
hearing to determine whether or not this zoning change should
occur. Since the City is the petitioner, we will go to the
property owner first and then to any other members of the audience
who cares to speak for or against this petition.
`ter.
Frank Jonna, Jonna Construction, 1533 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: The
property in question was originally, as indicated on the Master
Plan, which is yet to be approved, was noted to be C-l. At
Council's suggestion and with our concurrence, it was indicated
that the best approach would be to have C-2 on that property to
allow for cohesive use for both parcels of land, the existing C-2
and the proposed C-2. We feel that is an appropriate use for that
property. The balance of the property is intended to be upgraded
from M-1 to ML and will hopefully be put together as a corporate
park. There is a road proposed between the adjacent historic
office building that will access the site and parcel off the
rezoned ML property. With respect to the storm water concerns of
our neighbor to the east, we will adhere to all engineering
requirements in terms of discharge and will comply with whatever
requirements are necessary to insure that our storm water does not
cause any problems.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, would it be correct to say that the letter writer's
interest would be protected at the site plan approval process
rather than the zoning process?
Mr. Shane: That is correct. When the site plan is submitted and if and when
it receives its approval from the Planning Commission and City
Council, then following that before the petitioner can build the
,,` proposal, he must submit detailed engineering plans. That is the
point in time when they would deal with the storm water question.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the zoning and site plan issues come under different
petitions, we will make sure that letter follows the process.
Gary Bloom, 39040 West Seven Mile Road: I own that historic building. That was my
letter that was read and with assurance that there will be no water
problems, which we are on a septic tank, I have no objection to the
proposal by the petitioner and, in fact, I am for it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-436-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-14 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #367-92, proposing to rezone property located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and I-275 in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-7-1-14 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a logical
extension of an existing C-2 zoning district in the area.
12230
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional
buildable land area for the subject site.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends commercial use for the subject site.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning 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.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-1-17
by Victor International Corporation requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and
the I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from POIII to
C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning request.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shane, this is approximately 7.38 acres that is being rezoned
but out of that 7.38 acres, how much is actually usable as far as
4Itaw commercial property is concerned?
Mr. Shane: No more than half. Perhaps even a little less than that.
Mr. Gniewek: That is because there is a pond in that area so the only usable
portion would be the northerly portion of the property further away
from Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we could also add that it is not a decorative pond. It
is a retention pond that serves the entire development.
Mr. LaPine: The land to the south, is that zoned C-2?
Mr. Shane: No that remains in a PO III classification.
David Johnson, Chairman of Victor International: The rezoning is for the purpose
of the restaurant, which was originally incorporated into the
original concept for the corporate park and site plan with Building
One. The purpose of the rezoning is because it involves a Class C
liquor license. The pond is a functional open water drainage
system that services the entire 100 acres involved in Victor
Corporate Park and is permitted by the DNR and was constructed at
�.- considerable expense and will be staying there.
12231
Mr. LaPine: The whole area being rezoned will be used strictly for the
restaurant?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, one restaurant.
Amy Mr. Gniewek: The remaining portion of PO III adjacent to Seven Mile Road, that
would be kept as a buffer zone basically between Seven Mile Road
and your development and stay natural or are there any plans for
any construction there in the future?
Mr. Johnson: There are no current plans for development of it if it is usable
property. We have plenty of office property that is proposed
within the park at this time.
Mr. Gniewek: I wanted that point brought up.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-437-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-7-1-17 by Victor International Corporation requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor
Parkway and the I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from
POIII to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-7-1-17 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
complementary to the existing and proposed office uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is in compliance with the
proposed master development plan prepared for the Victor
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-1-18
by Central Construction, Inc. and Detroit Forest Products, Inc.
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF
to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
12232
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
if this site is to be developed as a single family subdivision,
there are no city maintained storm sewers readily available. The
storm sewer outlet for the site is currently located at the
Newburgh/Plymouth intersection. The use of any other storm sewer
INer outlet would require on-site retention of storm water run off from
the subdivision. They further state their office has no objection
to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Charles Gallagher: I am the attorney for the petitioner. I am with the law firm
of Brashear, Tangora & Spence. I am here filling in for my partner
Chuck Tangora, who couldn't be here tonight. The petitioners are
also present, the principals of Central Construction and Detroit
Forest Products. We are petitioning to have the subject property
rezoned from RUF to R-1 because we wish to develop this property
for single family residences and we feel given the character of the
surrounding area, the requested rezoning is reasonable. Another
thing I would point out in connection with our proposed development
of the property, right now we are proposing 42 lots and only 12
would be at the minimum if the zoning were changed. All the rest
of the lots would range from 60 to 80 feet in width and the depths
would be 120 to 197 feet. We would ask for a recommendation that
the property be rezoned.
Mr. Tent: Just a point of clarification and this is to Mr. Shane. There was
a previous petition for the same property about a year ago and the
Planning Commission approved the petition and then it was withdrawn
by the petitioner and we had studied it in depth. Is this going to
be a similar type of development?
Mr. Shane: The previous petitioner, you may recall, was proposing a
development that was not a conventional subdivision per se. He was
talking about cluster housing as a different kind of condominium
arrangement for the property as opposed to what this developer
wants to do, which is a single family subdivision where lots would
be for sale.
Mr. Tent: In your opinion this would be an upgrading from the previous
petition. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: They are asking for the same zoning. Either one would be a single
family residential development. It is a matter of design.
Mr. Tent: The other one was a condominium type of development and this is
strictly residential with private ownership?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Private ownership and single family detached conventional homes.
Mr. Gallagher: That is correct.
`...
12233
Mr. LaPine: I am curious about the engineering letter. They say there is no
storm sewer outlet readily available only at Plymouth and Newburgh.
Are the other homes and businesses in that area hooked into storm
sewers?
towMr. Shane: Yes they are. Probably what would happen here, there would be an
on-site detention system.
Mr. LaPine: Why wouldn't they be able to hook into the existing storm system?
Mr. Shane: They could but it would be a matter of building it further west of
their side. The point of the letter is that there is no storm
sewer adjacent to their site.
Mr. LaPine: But it could be accomplished?
Mr. Shane: Sure.
Mr. Alanskas: It says here the proposed change would provide for additional
reasonable priced houses. What do you mean by reasonable?
Craig Corbell: I am one of the principals of Central Construction. I am not sure
why the term reasonable was used but what we are looking at is base
prices in the area of $110,000 to $125,000 and then, of course, we
will have models, and what the market actually dictates will be
built in that location.
Mrs. Fandrei: To the petitioner, could you please go back over the number of lots
and different sizes?
Mr. Gallagher: There would be 12 that would be 60 x 120 and 30 lots that have
440. varying widths and depths and they vary. The largest lots would be
80 feet and the deepest lots would be 197 feet. There is quite a
variety in terms of those other 30 lots.
Mrs. Fandrei: What would be the reason for so many varying sizes?
Mr. Gallagher: The configuration of the land.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, the size of the lots to the north are at least 100 feet
wide and about how deep would they be?
Mr. Shane: Approximately 300 feet deep.
Mrs. Fandrei: So they are quite a bit larger than a number of these lots. Do you
have a feeling as to how many would be closer to the size of the
lots to the north?
Mr. Corbell: We have a preliminary plat designed by Warner, Cantrell & Padmos
and Martin Padmos had put together this preliminary plat. There
might be some fine tuning but we did go in and see the Planning
Department and basically asked what they would like to see and try
to bring something in as close to what they would like as possible.
We have a stub street drawn in for future expansion to accommodate
12234
the other landowners in the area, which Mr. Nagy had requested, and
we designed some of the landscape, berming areas and retention
areas to accommodate some of the issues that Mr. Clark had brought
up so most of this design had come from a consultation with
Planning and Engineering.
rlr►
Mrs. Fandrei: In what area would the 60 foot lots be?
Mr. Corbell: They are actually scattered. They are somewhat spread out.
Mrs. Fandrei: They are not all concentrated in one area?
Mr. Corbell: Correct. It just happened to work out that way based on all the
other parameters that came into play.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this rezoning request?
Mark Koziol, 11790 Jarvis: I am here to represent my father. He has a tight work
schedule. I guess this is the third time this piece of property
has come up. The first was by Dr. Mendelssohn, who proposed
putting up a senior citizens' village. The second time was by a
petitioner who wanted to put up cluster homes and then backed out
because of problems with Hygrades. Who, with their right to smell,
sight and hearing, would want to be surrounded by an ugly
environment like the one being proposed? (He pointed out on map
where they live) The smell is just terrible on certain days. I
was wondering with the wind and all that coming in from the west,
it wouldn't be too wonderful for the people living there.
41m, Diane Smith, 11715 Jarvis: Our concern is the size of the lots. The lots on
Alois, Jarvis and on Grantland and along Plymouth Road are all of a
larger size and that is what I feel gives it a lot of character. I
don't doubt these will be beautiful homes but I would like some
consideration with that. Also, for the people who will buy into
that area I hope they can tie into the storm sewers. I feel
strongly against retention ponds.
Mrs. Fandrei: Diane, what size is your lot?
Ms. Smith: 100 x 128.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are most of the lots in that area the same?
Ms. Smith: On our street except maybe the first three or four houses. I know
the ones along Plymouth Road all have large lots.
Mrs. Fandrei: That was why I was concerned with the number of 60 foot lots and
why I was asking that question. There are only 12 that are
scattered throughout the subdivision so most of them are larger.
Ms. Smith: It is a concern. I don't understand how things work here but as
long as it is single family and nicely built, it will be okay.
12235
Mr. Engebretson: I just want to help you understand how it works. If this is
approved here this evening, it moves on to the City Council. They
will go through this public hearing process again. If you received
notice of this hearing, you will receive notice of their hearing.
411er Ms. Smith: No I didn't.
Mr. Engebretson: If you are interested and want to attend that meeting, call the
City Council office tomorrow and make sure they know that you are
interested and they will be sure to notify you. They will have a
public hearing and then it goes through several of their meetings,
which will involve the preparation of an ordinance, first and
second reading to make it effective and then it is published in the
newspaper. It is a long drawn out ordeal. After that, the
petitioner is required to come back as a separate petition with a
preliminary plat approval and this is where they will get into lot
sizes, configuration of lots, how the storm sewers and retention
ponds, if any, will come into play. Then the Council goes through
that same process. If it makes it through all of that, which would
be probably six or eight months from now and in the middle of
winter or late winter, then you will probably see something happen
next spring. It is a multi-step process both here and at the
Council level and also two different kinds of petitions are
involved. We appreciate your comments and we want you to know how
the process works so you are comfortable with it because we welcome
folks like you coming here and sharing your time and comments.
Arnold Vonbuskirk, 37862 Plymouth: I live next to the public land and I am sure I
speak for my neighbors Norman and Greg when I say we don't have any
problem with them putting a neighborhood in there. We think it
would be a nice use of the land . I believe the only opposition I
have heard here tonight is by Mr. Jarvis and he says he has a
problem with the smell. That is his prerogative and if he doesn't
like it there, he has the opportunity to move.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regaring this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-7-1-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-438-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Petition 92-7-1-18 by Central Construction, Inc. and Detroit
Forest Products, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 30 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-7-1-18 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional
reasonable priced housing in the City.
12236
3) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage similar type
zoning proposals in the area in compliance with the Master Plan.
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. LaPine: I just want to tell the petitioner I am going to vote for your
proposal but I want you to understand when you come back for your
site plan I, for one, am not in favor of detention basins and would
like to see you hook into the storm sewers if that can be done.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-2-21
by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to increase
the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Vassar
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use request.
;4011. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office
stating on or about July 7, 1991 a plan review and subsequent
meetings approved existing exit door hardware. However, the
current adopted building code, BOCA, 1987 Edition and the
nationally recognized NFPA #101, Life Safety Code, are consistent
in identifying the existing exiting of this establishment as
inadequate. Therefore, with a proposed increase in seating
capacity of approximately 60% plus additional waiting patrons and
employees, this Division seeks to have the entire building brought
up to current code pertaining to required exiting elements. They
went on to detail this requirement and ended by saying the proposed
new construction and subsequent interior alterations provides an
opportunity to address this life safety issue at a minimum monetary
burden.
Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating: 1.
The following problems should be addressed: (a) The second parking
lot at 29220 Seven Mile has space for only 29 vehicles. The lot is
in poor repair. (b) The plan shows ten spaces along the east side
of the petitioner's property. Of that ten, only seven are usable
due to dumpster placement. 2. If and when the property at 29220
Seven Mile Road becomes occupied again, the petitioner may lose the
use of this lot. 3. The Toys-R-Us lot is 235 feet from the main
entrance of the restaurant. Most patrons may not be willing to
12237
walk that far and will be parking in the bank and tire store lot,
thus causing parking problems for them and enforcement problems for
the police department. They close by saying it is their feeling
that the area is not large enough to support this increase in
seating.
We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. Deficient on site landscaping. 2. The assignment of all of the
parking on lot 418 will render the building on that lot
uninhabitable. 3. The parking spaces in front of the building at
29220 Seven Mile have been redrawn to 9' width. There are
currently twelve 10' wide spaces. 4. The parking lot at the rear
of 29220 Seven Mile is in very bad condition and the front lot is
marginal. 5. The signs from the previous tenant at 29220 Seven
Mile must be removed from the property. All landscape beds on this
site are choked with weeds and there is a broken tree branch on the
Seven Mile right of way.
Lastly, we have in our file a letter dated August 25 from Shaheen
Boumaroun stating this is a brief letter to inform you that as of
this morning, the owner of the adjacent property (vacant health
club located on 29220 7 Mile Rd. ) has not informed us of the future
use of his building. Therefore, at this time we are unable to
submit to you a revised site plan or interior seating arrangement
for the newly proposed Big Boy. Based on the above information, we
request that you please remove our petition from the agenda of the
City Planning Commission meeting on 8/25/92.
We called the petitioner and indicated to him that there was a
`y public hearing this evening and it would go forward and I believe
he is here.
Mr. Engebretson: And we will go forward. Will the petitioner please come forward.
You may not want to necessarily address these items in great detail
at this point because it looks like there is a lot of work to do
here and we are not going to get it resolved this evening. We do
want to proceed with the public hearing and give you a chance to
make your points and then we will go to the audience.
Shaheen Boumaroun, 34695 Bridge, Livonia: I represent Ansara Six Big Boy and our
company is doing the actual site work and the engineering work and
hopefully the construction of this project. We have submitted the
plans and it was brought to our attention about the different
questions that the different departments of the City had. The
biggest issue was the parking issue, which means the only way we
can resolve that problem is to find out what the property off of
Seven Mile, which was a health club, is going to be used for and as
of this morning we have not heard from the owner of the property
what the use of the property is going to be. If and when we do
hear from him, we will make the necessary arrangements on the site
plan to accomodate the landscaping issue, the parking issue, and
all other related issues for that site and we will submit a revised
site plan to the Planning Commission. Right now we are asking you
to table this proposal until we hear from the owner of the adjacent
property.
411ur
12238
Mr. Engebretson: We will, however, go to the audience to see if anyone came down
here tonight to speak in favor of or in opposition to this waiver
use.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Ms, Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-439-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-6-2-21 by Ansara Six Big Boy, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and
Vassar Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-6-2-21 to date
uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-2-22
by Thomas' Family Dining requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C liquor license for a restaurant located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 33.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
business is well established in the area and they forsee no new
traffic problems with the addition of a Class "C" license. Also in
our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore they have
no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter
from T. J. Opalinski of 34087 Plymouth Road stating he objects to
this petition. He states as property and business owner next to
the petitioner, he would be sandwiched between two Class C
operations only separated by the 150 foot width of his property.
He further states that presently patrons are using his parking lot
and they have had a lot of misuse of the real parking lot by after
hours activities.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Thomas Mack, 33971 Plymouth Road: I am the owner of Thomas' Family Dining. I
don't know why the neighbor would be complaining about it. We
12239
would only be open until 10:00 p.m. and the liquor will only be 5%
to 10% of the sales of our restaurant. I don't see why there
should be a problem. It is not like a bar. It is a food
establishment.
`'` Mr. Engebretson: Not to trivialize the importance of that letter, but if the
letter hadn't been read, how would you characterize your proposal?
Mr. Mack: We are applying for a Class C liquor license and we think it will
help my sales. We have been there 20 years and are well
established and we would like to have a Class C liquor license.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make it clear to the audience that what we are
dealing with here is a waiver use to permit the use of a Class C
not to deal with the granting of a Class C liquor license. The
Planning Commission doesn't grant Class C liquor licenses. We
provide the vehicle to open you to scrutiny by the Liquor
Commission and the Police Department to have a determination made
as to whether or not that request will be granted.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Mack, you have a very fine restaurant. It is a family type
restaurant and I have been in it and the food is good and it is
well run. My concern here is this license. Are you applying for a
new one or are you going to purchase an existing license?
Mr. Mack: A new one.
Mr. Tent: You feel this is going to enhance your business? There are so many
bars in the area.
Mr. Mack: A lot of people enjoy to have a beer or wine or liquor with their
meal. The bar next door has a different clientele than what we
have. I don't see what the problem would be. You can't compare us
with the bar next door. It is a different type of operation.
Mr. Tent: But you have a successful operation right now.
Mr. Mack: We would like to enhance the business a little more. I think it is
a beautiful restaurant. We have done a lot of nice work there and
I think it would be just better.
Mr. Tent: You have families. Children come in there with their moms and
dads. I could see if you weren't successful. In this case I can't
see that happening. I think you are doing great the way you are.
That is where I am coming from.
Mrs. Fandrei: Then you are not changing the general thrust of your restaurant.
It is still a family dining restaurant.
Mr. Mack: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: You do have a nice restaurant. I have eaten there. I don't feel
every restaurant, especially this type that appeals to the family
where they are comfortable to bring children in, lends itself to a
liquor license especially you indicated it would probably only
12240
bring about 5% to 10%. We are having so many restaurants coming in
asking for liquor licenses. There are very few places any more
where a family that does not drink can go with their children and
sit comfortably without the atmosphere of a bar. There are two
that are already so close to you. I am very uncomfortable with
'- suggesting a Class C liquor license for your restaurant.
Mr. Mack: I am sorry to hear that.
Mr. Alanskas: Number one, your restaurant is gorgeous. I was there Saturday and
your landscape in the back is just beautiful. If you did get this
license, would you think of increasing your hours past 10:00 p.m.?
Mr. Mack: No, it would still be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: That might be an important issue.
Mr. Mack: It is only going to be a service bar.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, regarding that particular point, does the waiver use
process allow conditioning of this type of petition to our
particular hours of operation?
Mr. Shane: I think, along with the petitioner's concurrence, yes. If he is
willing to stipulate those are his hours, then there is no problem
conditioning it.
Mr. Engebretson: He has stipulated the hours are 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Mack: Seven o'clock until ten in the evening and we will not stay open
any later than that.
Mr. Engebretson: You would not have any problem making the approval contingent
upon that?
Mr. Mack: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you open Saturday and Sunday?
Mr. Mack: Yes, seven days.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-2-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-6-2-22 by Thomas' Family Dining requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C liquor license for a restaurant located on the south
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-2-22 be denied for the
following reasons:
12241
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
Nor 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(h) of
Zoning Ordinance #543 which requires at least a 1000 foot
separation between existing and proposed Class C licensed
facilities.
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to vote against the denying resolution for a number of
reasons. I think the Thomas' Family Dining operation, as we have
investigated it, has proven to be a very well run, clean operation
and I fail to understand why it would be inappropriate to take a
family into that very pleasant looking restaurant. I haven't been
there but I certainly intend to make it my business to go there.
Why it would be objectionable to take a family there because
someone may be having a drink at the next table when, in fact,
there are many families that go to dinner at the big chain
operations, such as the Olive Garden, Max & Erma's, Cookers, etc.
and these aren't places to go and drink. These are places to go
and eat and for some people to possibly enjoy a cocktail or beer
and wine with their dinner. I think it is time to support these
Nolar long-term loyal business operators that help to make the City what
it is and to give them the same chance to compete with these large
chain operations on an equal playing field. The petitioner has
indicated a willingness to give assurance that he does not intend
to convert this operation into anything other than what it is and I
think the petitioner has a valid point in this competitive market
to try to supply the ambience that a few of his customers may
choose to have available, again, to be on a level playing field
with some of these operations and I will bring my grandson to that
restaurant as soon as I can.
Mr. Tent: I take exception because during our questioning here with Mr. Mack,
his business is a viable operation and he is a successful business
person in the area. In other words, to go ahead and say we need a
liquor license there to promote the business, I can't see that
being a point at this time. The point is, if every restaurant in
town came in and asked for a liquor license, we would be a regular
boom city. I feel there are places for liquor and there are places
for just regular dining. You mention Max & Erma's. They have all
kinds of activities there. This is a family kind of thing. I have
no objection to drinking or having a cocktail with my dinner. He
is not competing with anybody else. He has his business there. He
is well established. When you use the fact that we are trying to
deprive a small businessman from existing because he doesn't have
any liquor, that is wrong. There comes a point where we have to
stop somewhere along the line. I completely disagree.
12242
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, I believe there are something like four or five liquor
licenses left in the City. Is that correct.
Mr. Shane: Yes it is.
%ww Mr. Engebretson: So it is impossible that we could ever get on any kind of a bent
where we could produce a restaurant with a liquor license on every
corner of the City.
Mr. Shane: The Class C liquor license is tied to the population.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Chairman, in listening to your remarks I agree with you
completely. I also would mention that one point that hasn't been
brought up is that there have probably been requests by patrons of
this restaurant and it would not only be a convenience to the
petitioner but also to some of the people that do attend the
restaurant. The Woodland Lanes is a bowling alley that has no
possible comparison with this particular restaurant. The Sports
Page Pub & Grub is strictly a bar. You can get a hamburger, watch
television and have a beer. This is a nice restaurant. It is
convenient. It has a nice clientele. He is offering another
convenience to his clientele. Another way of improving his
business. Another way of doing a service to the people who go
there. It is true there are a lot of people that don't drink,
there are a lot of people that are social drinkers, a lot of people
just have a drink when they go out. I don't think this request is
out of line. Unfortunately, I don't think he has much of a chance
of getting a liquor license because there are only a few licenses
left. However, I don't think we should deny him the opportunity to
seek one.
Mr. LaPine: The problem I have is the ordinance plainly states no liquor
license within 1000 foot separation. It doesn't deviate if it is a
bowling alley or a bar, a restaurant or whatever. It just says
1000 feet. My problem is if that is wrong, then the City Council
should look at that ordinance and maybe we should change it. Maybe
we should just eliminate the 1000 feet. I have no objection but I
think there is a problem with the ordinance. If the 1000 feet is
not going to be enforced, then we should not have that ordinance.
It is ridiculous to keep coming to us and we have to throw the
ordinance out the door.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you are right. I think we should take the initiative to
make the recommendation to the City Council that perhaps that
change be made. For example, we recently had restaurants across
the hall from each other in the Laurel Park Shopping Center. Max &
Erma's and D. Dennisons came in on the same evening for liquor
licenses and they were also across the street from one within the
1000 feet and that didn't cause the process to take pause for one
second. The fact that there are two existing licenses, entirely
different kinds of businesses, in this particular instance, in my
mind, means the Council should in its wisdom waive that condition.
Furthermore, I would like to add we recently, within the past year,
we and the Council approved a waiver use for the Old Mexico
12243
Restaurant, a very small family restaurant at Five Mile and
Harrison. That restaurant probably has fewer than 35 to 40 seats
but it did enhance that business. It did not change the character
of their operation. For all of those reasons I would urge defeat
of the resolution to deny this waiver use.
+a.
Mrs. Fandrei: Many of our friends don't drink and I know many of our young
families would like to take their children into an atmosphere where
there is no drinking of any kind. A lovely restaurant that is
standing on its own merit, I cannot be comfortable in supporting
this proposal.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei
NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#8-440-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
92-6-2-22 by Thomas' Family Dining requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C liquor license for a restaurant located on the south
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-2-22 be approved
subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation requirement by the
City Council for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special waiver use
standards as modified by the City Council and with all of the
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.
subject to the following condition:
1) That no liquor shall be served after 10:00 p.m.
2) That the waiver use is limited to the property being used for Class
C liquor license purposes in connection with a service bar only.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent, Fandrei
ABSENT: Morrow
12244
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-8-2-23
by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to construct a
law full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
it is recommended that a 6' wide sidewalk be placed along the Seven
Mile frontage. We have also received a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal,
however, a hydrant of adequate water volume shall be provided not
to exceed a minimum distance of 350 feet from the proposed
building. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were
found, therefore their department has no objections to the
proposal. A letter has been received from the Traffic Bureau dated
August 14, 1992 stating: 1. The east driveway must be 30 feet.
The radius of the curb cut should be 25 feet. 2. With the above
addition, the parking is now 103, one space below the minimum. 3.
Parking lot security lighting not shown. 4. Dumpster area not
shown. 5. Parking blocks must be installed along all sidewalks to
prohibit parking within two feet of sidewalk. 6. We reserve
further comment pending submission of landscaping and signage plan.
On August 18, 1992 we received a follow-up letter from the Traffic
Bureau after reviewing a revised site plan stating it would appear
the petitioner removed four seats to make up for the loss of two
parking spaces to enlarge the east drive. We would still like to
see a 25 foot radius on the curb cut for the driveway. Also we
have a letter from Klein & Bloom, the exact letter that I read with
respect to the petition for the rezoning of this property.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shane, there is a considerable amount of C-2 other than the
proposed area. How much C-2 area that already exists along with
the new C-2 that is being proposed is actually usable as far as
building is concerned.
Mr. Shane: I am sure the petitioner can speak a little more fluently on that.
All I can say is a considerable amount, perhaps half of the
property may be unbuildable because of the existing wetland
condition on the site.
Mr. Gniewek: So though it looks like there is a lot of land here, there is not a
lot of buildable land.
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Let me just mention that the waiver use proposed here is for the
land which is presently zoned C-2 but likely to be changed to the
land that was proposed earlier tonight and recommended for a change
to C-2. With that, Mr. Jonna please come forward and continue your
presentation.
12245
Frank Jonna: This represents where we would like to put the building subject to
the C-2 zoning. As you can see, the area to the north is a large
area that the grade drops off significantly and there is a drainage
ditch that runs through that area and there are no plans for any
construction in that area at this time. This represents the
r" proposed road for the corporate park that is planned for the
balance of the property. (This was all pointed out on the plan).
To get into further detail on the site plan, I regret this plan is
not what we submitted but if you will bear with us I would like to
have our engineer point out the bigger plan of what we would like
to have on that site.
Engineer: We shifted the restaurant to the east. By doing this it allows us
a little more of a balance in parking to service the restaurant
area. We do have a significant grade differential from the south
to the north, which we can accommodate through various means
without going into the area to the north. What we are proposing to
do also is putting in an entrance onto Seven Mile Road to help
serve the site. The storm sewer will be an enclosed system with an
outlet going to drain to meet the engineering requirements of the
City. There is an existing water main on Seven Mile Road and
sanitary sewer also.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have a copy of Mr. Bloom's letter that was read into the
record earlier?
Engineer: No I do not.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you make it your business to get a copy of that from the
staff so that you can make sure that you consider all of his points
`fir. of concern as a good neighbor?
Engineer: I have had a conversation with Gary Clark and we both concur there
wouldn't be a problem with the storm water. I don't think it will
have any adverse effect on the adjacent property.
Mr. Engebretson: I am sure, but I am just asking you to make sure we cover all the
bases. He has been there a long time.
Mr. Gniewek: Would this be the gentleman who would tell us who Applebee's is?
Gentlemen from Applebee's: Applebee's Neighborhood Grille & Bar is a chain of
restaurants. We currently have approximately 225. We have been
picked by Nation's Restaurant News as the number one growth chain
in our element and in the country in the last two years and that is
the full service casual dining. We are looking at this area in
Livonia as being very consistent with other Applebee's throughout
the country. There is a great deal of office space and retail and
while we expect to get a great number of residential people there
at night, we are not directly in their neighborhood. Applebee's is
open seven days a week for lunch and dinner. Sunday mornings we
have brunch. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Engebretson: Where is the nearest existing restaurant?
12246
Petitioner: There are no Applebee's in the State of Michigan right now. We
have a number of them in Ohio. We are in Chicago, Wisconson and
Pennsylvania. We are looking for a number of restaurants in the
southern Michigan area.
Mr. Engebretson: You say you are a neighborhood bar and grille. Do you
characterize yourself as a family restaurant?
Petitioner: We stress Neighborhood Grille and Bar over Bar and Grille.
Mr. Tent: What we are looking at here tonight is a waiver approval for a
restaurant. This is a site plan and these are the things we will
approve to go forth. My question here now is the signage on the
restaurant. Is that all part of our approval now? Is the sign
part of this approval or will they come back?
Mr. Engebretson: I will try to answer that and Mr. Nagy will check me out. It is
my impression we can't dispose of this issue tonight because we
have a revised site plan that places the building on land that is
inappropriately zoned at this point. I think it is fair to say it
is not necessary that we get into signage tonight. We are going to
be revisiting signage and landscaping. I think it would be
appropriate to share your thoughts regarding signage for the next
meeting so he knows what is coming.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the design of the building?
Petitioner: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: It doesn't turn me on architecturally. We are up there in the
v`, high rent district and we are looking for something high class. To
me this is four walls with a canopy on the front.
Petitioner: I wouldn't categorize it as classy. I would categorize it as
attractive and functional. We are not looking for the high end
expenditures on dinners. We appeal to what we call the middle 90%
of the country. There was a discussion earlier about family
restaurants and we do a great deal of family business. Based upon
the amount of stores we have opened in the last few years, I think
this is what the average consumer is looking for.
Mr. Engebretson: How many cookie cutters do you have for different styles of
buildings?
Petitioner: We take the one basic prototype and change it around quite a bit.
Mr. LaPine: How old is this chain?
Petitioner: The company was started in 1980 but it was privately owned and was
purchased just a little over three years ago by its current owners.
Mr. LaPine: How many restaurants do you have at this time?
Petitioner: 225.
Mr. Alanskas: At your 225 locations when the patrons come to your restaurant, do
you take reservations?
12247
Petitioner: We do not take reservations.
Mr. Engebretson: The issue here is whether or not to grant a waiver use to
construct a full service restaurant. We have a proposal that is
very preliminary and it is inappropriate for the existing zoning so
44.
if you agree, we are going to have to come back and go at this
again. I am going to give the audience a chance to see if anyone
wants to speak for or against this waiver use and I will give you
the last word. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this waiver use?
There was no one in the audience who wished to speak on this item.
Petitioner: We do a very intense demographic study of every site before we open
and obviously if we are going to spend a great deal of money to get
into a suburb like Livonia, we spend a lot of time checking the
demographics. Obviously we feel Livonia is a good area for
Applebee's and the demographics show Livonia will be good for us.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-2-23 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#8-441-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Petition 92-8-2-23 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and
the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-8-2-23
'wr► pending rezoning of the property and submittal of a new site plan.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-8-2-25
by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C liquor license for a proposed restaurant located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: We just need to go through the process because we advertised the
,,� public hearing.
12248
Mr. Gniewek: The liquor license, should everything get approved, would this be a
new one or would you be purchasing an existing one?
Petitioner: A new one.
4111I'' There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-442-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on Petition 92-8-2-25 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license for a proposed
restaurant located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty
Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
92-8-2-25 pending resolution of the rezoning petition.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision proposed to be located north
of Orangelawn between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 33.
`\r
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 Parks and Recreation Department
stating they have found no problems or discrepancies with the plan
as presented. We have also received a letter from the Traffic
Bureau stating the street names should remain consistent with those
in the area to facilitate location by emergency services and
delivery services. A letter from the Fire Marshal states they have
no objection to its development contingent upon a water supply of
adequate volume. A letter from the Engineering Department
recommends that the street names be reviewed by the Police and/or
Fire Departments.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you please repeat and point out on the map where the wall
would be required.
Mr. Nagy: As you come into the subdivision from Angeline Road where it swings
to the south, the first lot paralleling the RUF zone on the north,
which is Lot 16. That area is zoned parking. This is a
non-residential zone. Where you have residential abutting a
non-residential zone there should be a wall but since the parking
zone was developed first, the burden was on that property owner to
12249
construct the wall. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief to
Woodland Lanes, which is the principal use of the property, for a
temporary waiver of the wall. So the matter will be reviewed by
the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with their prior action
relative to the wall.
low
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: We are building a 16 lot subdivision, which hopefully
will go to 20 because we just took control of Lot 140. These lots
average 60 x 134. Some are larger. I have been a builder in
Livonia for close to 20 years. I am buying lots to build on not to
sell. It is going to be basically my own thing. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Engebretson: Do I understand your firm would construct and sell all 16 of
these homes?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: Would those homes be compatible with the existing homes in that
neighborhood.
Mr. Soave: I would say they would complement the neighborhood very good. They
will sell for about $150,000.
Al Winkle, 33755 Plymouth Road: I represent Woodland Lanes. My objections are to
Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, with Lot 16 butting up to the side of our
parking lot. As you know, we run a bowling center and the back
area there contains approximately 120 cars. We do have a change of
*qtr. those cars when the leagues rotate at approximately 7:30 and again
at 11:00 or 11:30. I don't think anybody has taken into
consideration the minimum amount of noise and the light that is
going to come from the parking lot from Woodland Lanes, especially
on Lot 16. We were there first. We have a minimum amount of
problems there. Very minimal. In fact, none. There is a certain
amount of noise in conjunction with cars moving in and out and a
certain amount of light with the parking lot. One incident we had
this summer and that was a call from a neighbor indicating there
was noise coming from the parking lot and when we went out to the
parking lot, it wasn't even our lot. It was Buddy's which is
another 500 to 600 feet to the east. I am assuming one of the
persons that called us lives on Edington. Now we have Lot 16
butting up against our parking lot and I can assure you within a
three month period of time, we are going to have those neighbors,
even though we have been there for a long period of time,
complaining about either the light or a certain amount of vandalism
or people cutting through the area or just general noise. I think
some consideration should be given to those Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Up until this time with the lots and homes on Edington, there has
been a buffer zone with trees and shrubbery in that particular
area. There won't be any buffer zone on Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16. I
don't think we should have to take the brunt of some of the
problems that are going to come up when these homes are built on
Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16.
12250
Mr. Tent: Mr. Winkle, I think you bring up a very valid point. You are
coming up front before anything gets started to eliminate a
problem. To the petitioner, can we do anything about Lots 13, 14,
15 & 16. Can they be dropped?
Mr. Soave: We have purchased the property already. As you can see, this was
landlocked. In order to gain control, we had to purchase that
first property.
Mr. Tent: Do you have any solution that you can think of because what he said
here is true. He has been there a long time. When they sell those
homes they are going to run into a problem. I would like to cut
this off at the pass. That is a concern I would have.
Mr. Winkle: One other thing I would like to bring up, the area below that, the
parking area, we own that property too. They have approached us
about purchasing that property and developing homes back there.
There are four lots back there. This would be advantageous for us
to sell that property and let them develop it because the property
is no good to us. The only reason we haven't sold it is, again,
the concern of the people who move into that area with the noise
and lights from the parking lot of the bowling center. I also
object to the waiver on that particular wall coming up along the
side of the parking lot. It certainly seems to me that if they
were going to develop that property, and they do develop that
property, it would seem to me that they should be responsible for
the expenses on that wall. In fact, in order to make it look like
something decorative, it should be brought all the way up to the
bowling center itself.
Mr. Tent: I think we have some more homework to do on this but I am glad you
brought that up.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Winkle, may I ask you two questions. Let me explain something
first. That property there, as you know you pay property taxes on
the property behind you, and even though you pay property tax on
it, it is your choice to keep it that way. We, as a City, can't
say it would be nice to keep this as a nature preserve or anything
else, we want you to keep paying property taxes on it. So the
Planning Commission has to look at what is the best possible use.
Looking at that piece of property, it would be unfair to the
neighbors behind them to put anything in there besides single
family residential. Nothing else would fit in that particular
piece. So he pretty much has a right to develop his property under
the law for its zoned use.
Mr. Winkle: I can understand that but I think you should look at our position.
Mr. McCann: There is no question about that. That is why the City, in its
ordinance, one of the requirements is that when you develop on
commercial property, that you build a wall. The City has granted
you a variance not to build that wall. Is that correct?
Mr. Winkle: That is correct.
12251
Mr. McCann: That is a variance they have allowed you over the years because it
wasn't necessary. It was your responsibility to put that wall in
and it still is because you own the commercial property. You might
discuss with the contractor if he wishes to sell that property to
you if you wanted to maintain it in that way. Other than that, as
Awy a Planning Commission, we are here to look at that property and try
to develop it in the best possible use for the surrounding area. I
don't see another potential use there besides residential.
Mr. Winkle: I don't see any other use either. I agree with you there. It is
like somebody who moves onto a golf course and then they get a
couple of golf balls in their backyard and then they are
complaining to the golf course because these golf balls are going
into their backyard. I can see the same type of problem arising
here.
Mr. McCann: I am sure you are right. I happen to be an attorney. One of my
first cases in law school was a property class and it was about
people that moved around a smelting place and eventually growth
came and they had to move the smelting place. Unfortunately, it is
part of the system, part of the development and I can see the
problems but from a planning standpoint, it really is the best use.
People do have the right to develop their property.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not trivializing your comments. I think you make some very
valid points. I think you are being a very responsible neighbor in
bringing those points up. As a point of concern, unfortunately, I
think the developer is an individual who is going to have the
burden to make sure that the people that purchase those lots are
strongly aware of what they are dealing with there. We have had
'`. situations like that where we have required the developer in their
advertising to disclose a situation that may be potentially a
problem for them. I don't think we should make it your problem but
I can understand how something that evolves here could become your
problem even though you don't deserve it.
Mr. Winkler: Maybe there is some way we can work it out with the developer where
we can even sell our property off and have a greenbelt between us
so we could have some type of a barrier there to eliminate some of
the noise.
Mr. McCann: Excellent suggestion.
Mr. Tent: You have a valid point and we have done that in the past. I think
it is nice the gentleman brought up the point before they move into
the area. Can we go ahead and make it part of his presentation to
his potential buyers that this could be a condition. We have done
that in the past.
Mr. Nagy: You can make it a condition that they advise the buyers that there
is going to be a screen wall, required by ordinance, on the east
side of the court, but the responsibility for the screen wall is on
the non-residential property owner. They create the problem. It
12252
is the parking of cars and the headlight glare, that requires the
screen wall being required for the non-residential property owner.
It is his responsibility to screen the nuisance that comes from his
parking lot adversely affecting the property owners. When he
extended his parking zone into that residential area, it was his
"— requirement to provide the screen wall on three sides of his
property and to that extent then because of the undevelopment of
that bordering area, the Zoning Board granted him temporary relief
subject to their review but now that there is a firm commitment
through the zoning change and the development of that property,
it will be, in fact, developed single family residential with
residential homes going in there, that matter comes up for future
review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am almost confident that
the Zoning Board will insist that the wall be constructed. It will
be automatic. What the proprietor of this subdivision will do is
to advise those that buy the lots in that area, that there will be
a screen wall constructed to protect the residential property area
from the adverse effects from that parking lot.
Mr. Tent: That would satisfy my objection. If that be the case, I think it
could be resolved.
Terry Cwik, 11016 Edington: I have a few objections to the way the plat is. What
I would like to do is I ran some copies so you can follow what my
comments will be and then go over them with me. (He passed these
out along with some pictures) I listed seven objections that I
had. I break them down into two categories. The first four
pertain to Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, which are the same lots Mr.
Winkler addressed. I would like to cover those first. Lots 13,
14, 15 and 16 are the ones that the pictures are of and, in my
opinion, those lots are wetlands or at least swamp lands at best.
Five to six months out of the year there is a lake back there and
that lake is as deep as 1 1/2 feet. You see some pictures I took
of that. That standing water there runs completely through 13 and
14 and if you look through the trees you will see water where Lot
16 is. Beyond that is the parking lot. I would like to know what
is going to happen to that water when you remove the trees, which
are consumers of water, and put in concrete and houses. Where is
that water going to go? There are two other houses built on
Angeline and when those lots were put in, my backyard became damp
through the months of April, May and June. I can believe that my
lot may end up getting standing water back there when you add
houses on those four lots.
Item two is about sewer routing. I may not be an engineer as far
as the way sewers are constructed but I don't know of any mention
of where the sewers are going to run. I have been told by people
that built those two new homes, again on Angeline, that the sewer
access is very high. When I go to the back of my lot, I have a
sewer back there and when I look down in the sewer, it is about
five feet down from where the water is running so I know that sewer
probably can't be tapped or they cannot put basements in those four
homes. I am not sure which. I would like to have someone
investigate that issue.
12253
Issue number three is that there is an underground stream running
through what he calls Lot 13. It runs between my property and the
lot next to me. Two years ago when we had a drought season, you
could hear water running through that drain. I have a sump pump in
my basement, which runs every 15 minutes on the hour regardless of
Vier how long it has been raining. It can be perfectly dry and my sump
pump would be pumping water out so there is water running
underneath and it is running between my property heading back
towards Lots 13 and 14.
Number four addresses somewhat the issue Mr. Winkler addressed and
that is the bowling center parking lot and the noise issue. You
have addressed that as well as legally possible to address. I
think Al made a nice proposal, possibly swapping some of his land
on the south end of his property so the gentleman can build four
lots on his south end and still keep Al wrapped around with trees.
That may be a nice alternative solution to solve that problem. His
customers are not noisy but I have a second story bedroom and you
can hear the cars and you know it is something you have to live
with and it is not something he can control. We can hear Buddy's.
We can hear the P.A. system from across Plymouth. Noise is an
issue but it is something you learn to live with.
Those are my comments on those four lots and I hope you take them
seriously and look into some of my questions before you approve his
subdivision.
Items 5, 6 and 7 address the first 12 lots. Angeline currently is
a east/west street. The way his plan is he is turning it into a
north/south street. I think that is a mistake. I think he should
keep it east and west. I see no reasons for making it a dead end.
I think the City has an ordinance that says you have to have a
cul-de-sac. I don't see how you would allow a dead end street
there. Also on number 5 he has two names. Why can't we use a name
that already exists therefore people know where the street is
located.
Number six addresses the dead end section he calls Angeline. I am
very curious as to how he expects to have garbage service in there
and why he even needs that. In my plan you can see where I have
attempted to redraw that area so it is a sweeping curb. They
roughly all are within the proper sizes. I think that would be a
much improved plot plan than the one this gentleman came up with.
Number seven concerns the last lot he is the non-owner of and I
think it would be very foolhardy for you to approve a plot plan on
the contention that he may buy it, that you may later on approve
the rezoning of that property. I think you should wait and be sure
he owns that property. I also address that in that layout where I
move that cul-de-sac forward. I also allowed him to have access to
potentially building two, maybe three more lots on that land that
he is about to acquire. In my unprofessional opinion, I think he
can do better than what he submitted to you and I being a neighbor,
I have no problem with the gentleman building the types of houses
he builds, the lot sizes, but I would like for you to address the
r.� issues I presented.
12254
Mr. McCann: I am going to make a suggestion. You have a lot of good
suggestions. Mr. Winkler had some very valid concerns and I
believe Mr. Soave is trying to put a good proposal here. What I
have seen tonight is if you three had gotten together, I think we
would have had a much better proposal before us tonight. I am
— going to recommend that we table this matter so you can get
together and possibly show him your design. He can get together
with Mr. Winkler and look at those extra lots and see if they can
work something out and I also believe our staff would be much
better able to answer your questions that you put here if you sat
down with the staff. They could go through them and address them
and take the best suggestions and work with Mr. Soave in this
respect. I think it would be most productive for the Planning
Commission, yourself, Mr. Winkler and Mr. Soave if we did table
this.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do we have anything from the Engineering Department on
this water issue?
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department did not address that. They just said it
appears there are no other engineering problems connected with the
proposal other than the street names should be reviewed by the
Police and Fire Departments and the matter of the protective wall.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with Mr. McCann. I think we need to table this and this
seems to be one of the major issues that needs to be worked out is
the amount of water laying on this part of the property.
Mr. Tent: I agree with Mr. McCann. There are two many things to be
addressed. Mr. Nagy, about the Engineering Department can we find
'oar out why they overlooked that?
Mr. Nagy: I am not here to speak for Engineering. If you table the matter
for future review, we can certainly have the Engineering Department
look at it again.
Mr. Engebretson: If we went out there tomorrow would we see that lake there?
Mr. Cwik: No, it is there for five to six months. It begins in November when
the snow begins and it stays there always through May and sometimes
until June.
Harold Klee, 33830 Orangelawn: Part of my property is involved in this
subdivision. First of all I want to address the water problem. I
would like to remind Mr. Cwik before he moved into his house, where
his house is currently located, was a pond before he moved in there
and I don't believe he has a lot of problems back there either.
This is a viable plan. We have owned our property for 20 years. I
think it is time now for me to go on to other things. That is why
I proposed to Mr. Soave to subdivide it in the manner he has. The
street names, they can be anything. Perhaps there is some
revision. Those are some things that can be decided very easily
administratively. The noise issue. You are right, we can, where I
live on Orangelawn, also hear the noise from the parking lot. That
is a common fact of living in the city. We are not living in the
12255
country. Much noise has come in since the subdivision that has
changed our way of life back there immensely. The change that is
being presented here is not as immense. It is not as intense as it
was for me when that subdivision was built back there. I chose not
to be part of that. That was my choice and I have not regretted
`- it but it is time now for me to move on to other things. It is
time for me to take my money out of the property. I can use it.
The issue of the last lot, that is something that can be easily
answered by the manner of a purchase agreement. To hold up this
particular portion of the zoning because there is a question of the
way another lot is going to be rezoned. It has to come back to you
anyways. It doesn't make any sense. It is time to move. These
gentlemen want to get shovels in the ground before winter so they
can get some of the underground work done. Time is money when you
are in the construction business and the jobs in that area are not
as plentiful as what we would like them to be.
Mr. Tent: Do you own some of the property that is under petition?
Mr. Klee: I own two of the lots.
Mr. Tent: I can see your concern about developing the subdivision and I feel
it should be developed. As Mr. McCann stated, the petitioner has
the right to develop his property, but during these proceedings
there were several factors that were brought up. I feel they can
get together and resolve this. I think serious things have been
brought up that if everybody agreed to can be corrected. Under
those circumstances, the tabling which I was supporting, let's get
together and look at this proposal. We still are in favor of
developing the land. It is better to go ahead and think these
things out than to repent at leisure and then we have a problem.
We are not trying to hold this project up. We are just saying as
quickly as they can get together we can move on.
Mr. Klee: In effect, you are delaying it. We will have to come back.
Mr. Tent: We are not trying to stonewall this. I think we are just being
fair. I think you should just be fair too. We are not going to do
this development in two or three weeks.
Mrs. Fandrei: Harold, when the subdivision on Edington and Angeline, the one that
is now developed, did that force the water that is laying in the
northern portion into that area.
Mr. Klee: No it did not. It dried the property up much more. My property
was much drier once the subdivision went in. It has always been
lowland. It has always been somewhat wet in spring. There have
been times when I have not been able to cut the rear of my yard way
in the back until the end of June before that subdivision was
developed. We used to have ponds back there. We used to skate in
our backyard. It is not an unusual situation.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is dried now?
Mr. Klee: Yes it is.
12256
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, maybe our Engineering Department is the only one that can
answer this, would the sewer help eliminate that problem?
Mr. Nagy: That is the purpose for having an engineering review and having the
plot go through. The planning process of the City of Livonia is to
evaluate all those aspects of a development, the storm drainage,
the street drainage, the draining for the houses, to make sure
that the development does not adversely affect the surrounding
development in the area. That is all part of the engineering
review.
Ann Cwik, 11016 Edington: A couple of things to reiterate. In response to the
previous gentleman's request that we rush this through, and I
appreciate the comments from Mr. Tent and from the Chairman that we
are not trying to stonewall or delay or take away someone's right
to capitalize on their land. We are asking if there are some
things to consider, please consider them. In regard to the
problem. That is truly a problem, that the previous gentleman said
is not. The lower area, those appear to be relatively stable,
straight land where there might not be a serious water problem. I
want to reiterate the area, the four lots behind our Lot 30, there
is a real problem there. In fact, I don't know if you can tell
from the pictures. The pictures are taken from our house back
through our backyard into those lots. I don't know if you can see
but the back part of our property drops off and we end up with a
lot of water back there, and it continues to drop off. We are not
trying to stonewall this development but there is a real problem
back there. We are already experiencing problems on our land even
with the sump pump and the sewer back there. It is really
equivalent to New Orleans where they have an area that is below sea
`w level. Please check into this. Also, in regard to the other 12
lots, the previous gentleman didn't see what my husband has
proposed and given to you tonight. I think he has done a much
better job in laying out those lots than what is currently there.
Perhaps he would like to see a copy of that. We are not trying to
stop it but we think we can do a better job.
Mr. Soave: If there is a water problem, with storm sewers and catch basins
that problem will go away.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, the plat that has been presented to us, are all the lots
conforming to the R-1 zoning district as far as 60' by 120'?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they are all conforming.
Mr. Gniewek: Just a comment. Mr. Cwik has made a very concerted effort to
prepare a better plot plat for this particular subdivision.
However, I do note that in at least three or four instances, the
size of the lots, especially the frontage, vary 44, 45 feet. They
are required to be 60 feet. The lots proposed by Mr. Cwik would
not comply although the area of the lot would probably be
comparable to what our R-1 would require, the dimensions of the lot
do not lend themselves to the R-1 area. The plan itself looks good
on paper. However, it does not meet the ordinance.
`..
12257
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution. Mr. Soave, I like what
you are doing but there are several reasons why I believe this
should be tabled at this time. One, I would like to have the water
addressed by the Engineering Department just to make sure the
sewers are adequate for the area. Secondly, Mr. Winkler has
'`' commented that you had approached him to purchase the property. He
had not been willing to sell. However, he is now interested and
that may help you in your subdivision development. It may benefit
both of you. There is still the open space requirement that has
not been met and maybe with the additional property you will be
getting there, it might work out to use a little of that open space
requirement to provide a buffer zone for those extra lots and there
are some other issues regarding street design and names that I
think could be addressed as well. Therefore, I am going to table
it with a date certain, September 1, for study so we can look at
this as soon as possible to get your proposal moving.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for
Orangelawn Woods Subdivision is closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#8-443-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
25, 1992 on the Preliminary Plat for Orangelawn Woods Subdivision
proposed to be located north of Orangelawn between Stark and Farmington
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table the Preliminary Plat for Orangelawn Woods
Subdivision until the study meeting of September 1, 1992.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Alanskas, Gniewek
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
The next item on the agenda was Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #611-92, to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether Article XXI of Zoning Ordinance #543 should be amended so as to
authorize the appointment of two alternate members to the Zoning Board
of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of MCL 125.585.
12258
Mr. Engebretson: I think that is pretty clear. The purpose of this item is to set
a public hearing to consider those changes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-444-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Article XXI of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to authorize the appointment
of two alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance
with the provisions of MCL 125.585.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Request by John Del Signore to withdraw Petition
90-11-1-32 by John DelSignore to rezone property located on the
north side of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles Road and the I-96
Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19 from C-2 and P to M-1
and C-2 to P.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a request by John Del Signore to withdraw this petition
because the proposed use under consideration at that time is no
longer of interest.
On a motion duly made by by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
"Orr
#8-445-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
15, 1991 on Petition 90-11-1-32, and pursuant to a request by John Del
Signore dated August 5, 1992, the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the withdrawal of Petition 90-11-1-32 by John Del Signore to
rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between
Eckles Road and the I-96 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19 from
C-2 and P to M-1 and C-2 to P.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-2-12 by The Fresh Choice requesting
waiver use approval for the outdoor display and sale of flowers and
vegetable garden plants on property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Vassar Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Engebretson: This is an item that was tabled at an earlier public hearing. We
need a motion to remove it from the table.
12259
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-446-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-3-2-12 by The Fresh Choice requesting waiver
use approval for the outdoor display and sale of flowers and vegetable
garden plants on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Vassar Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 1 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner had indicated at the public hearing that there was
a plan on his part to seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals
that would permit him to go forward with the petition. It is our
understanding that never happened and it is also our understanding
the petitioner has now asked that this item be disposed of.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-447-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
14, 1992 on Petition 92-3-2-12 by the Fresh Choice requesting waiver use
approval for the outdoor display and sale of flowers and vegetable
garden plants on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Vassar Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition
92-3-2-12 for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
subject use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
"` 2) That the subject use is in violation of a Zoning Board of Appeals
Resolution No. 9110-130 which states, in part, "That there be no
outside displays of any type on this property".
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Approval of the minutes of the 647th Regular Meeting
held on August 11, 1992.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-448-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 647th Regular Meeting held on August
11, 1992 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12260
The next item on the agenda is Petition 92-8-8-12 by Detroit Korean Seventhday
Adventist Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance ##543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a parking lot in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner submitted a new site plan because at the study
• meeting the Commission had some objections about the proposed
parking lot being along the sidewalk. At the study meeting it was
requested that the petitioner get together with the staff, which
they did, and we worked with them. The new parking lot is set back
about four feet from the sidewalk, with a six foot setback from the
building. The sign area now has more landscape area than the old
site plan. The new site plan only has 14 parking spaces. The old
one had 16. The landscaping is 21%.
Mr. Engebretson: Would that overhang be usable in light of the landscaping that
exists between the lot and the church building?
Mr. Miller: They would probably have to redo that.
Mr. Tent: We show bumper blocks on this drawing. Has that been incorporated?
Mr. Miller: Right. That way they can't hang over the sidewalk.
Mr. Tent: Will there also be bumper blocks next to the church area?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are any of these handicap?
Mr. Miller: Yes the first one.
Mr. LaPine: John, this church faces Sunnydale. That is the front of the
building? Then Middlebelt would be a side yard?
Mr. Nagy: While the church itself, from a facade standpoint basis, faces
Sunnydale, by definition, where you have a corner lot, the nearest
lot width facing the street, by ordinance, is the front yard.
Mr. Alanskas: Those three trees will be staying?
Mr. Miller: There is a question that the one tree could possibly have to be
removed. The petitioner has agreed if trees are in the way, they
will have to be removed.
Mr. Engebretson: When I visited this site, I went there with the idea how odd to
put a parking lot in the front yard but when I visited it, I came
to realize it would make it conform to all of its neighbors on both
sides. It is my impression that this lot would be pretty much
aligned with the lot across the street, across Sunnydale and also
to the south. Am I reading that correctly?
Mr. Miller: Yes. There is a parking lot for commercial stores down Middlebelt.
Plus across Sunnydale there is a parking lot. It would almost be
continuous of parking lots.
12261
Mr. Engebretson: If you would look at this in isolation without any of the facts,
it would appear to be a strange proposal but, in fact, it is very
compatible with everything in the neighborhood.
Mr. Miller: Yes.
""r Mr. Alanskas: The landscaping where the sign is to be, would that be small shrubs
or how would it be?
Mr. Miller: They will have to submit a landscaping plan.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-449-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
92-8-8-12 by Detroit Korean Seventhday Adventist Church requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 8/8/92 prepared on behalf of the Detroit
Korean Seventhday Adventist Church at 15956 Middlebelt Road is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That a landscape plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this
approval.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Gniewek: I would like to mention the fact that our direction to the
petitioner was followed through very well. I think the compromise
and the movement they have made on this has made this site a lot
better looking.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree and I appreciate the effort. I think the other thing, I
would like to encourage the petitioner if it looks like you are
going to lose that one tree, the front one, one of the things that
helps soften all of those parking lots along Middlebelt are some of
the shrubs and trees. I think it would be good to keep in mind
that they possibly put a tree in the forward area where there is
more room for it if they have to be removed.
Mr. Engeberetson: I would also like to commend the petitioner for their
cooperation but I think equal accomodation is due the staff for
working this out.
The next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems on
behalf of Art Van Furniture requesting approval to increase the size of
an existing wall sign at 29905 Seven Mile Road.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-450-92 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems on behalf
of Art Van Furniture requesting approval to increase the size of an
existing wall sign at 29905 Seven Mile Road be taken from the table.
12262
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: Right now there is signage on the Art Van Store. The purpose is to
remove the Art Van logo, leave the Art Van Furniture where it is
and add "Clearance Center". The total square foot area would be
' 381. They are only allowed 214 so they would have to get a
variance to allow this signage.
Mr. Gniewek: How many square feet do they have now? I know there is a variance
on it now but how much do they have?
Mr. Miller: The existing sign is 336 square feet.
Mr. Gniewek: What is that total addition to what we are looking for at this
particular site?
Mr. Miller: 55 square feet.
Mr. Gniewek: By eliminating the logo, we have eliminated quite a bit of square
footage to just a total of 55. Just for the record what was the
original plan that they presented to us way back?
Mr. Miller: It was 984 square feet.
Mr. Gniewek: It is substantially lower.
Mr. Engebretson: This is one of the most confusing signs that we have dealt with
other than the Perry Drug sign on Plymouth Road. I have a problem
with this. We see that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved 265
feet but they have 378 feet and we are talking about a small
r.. increase to that.
Mr. Gniewek: I believe what the Zoning Board of Appeals approved was 265 square
feet above what they were required to have. In other words they
were granted 265 plus what they were allowed for a total of 378
square feet. That was what was approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: Then this is incorrect when it says that the Zoning Board
approved 265 square feet.
Mr. Miller: They approved 265 square feet over what was allowed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-451-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems on
behalf of Art Van Furniture requesting approval to increase the size of
an existing wall sign at 29905 Seven Mile Road be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the Sign Plan #92413, dated 7/31/92 by Warren Sign Systems,
submitted on behalf of Art Van Furniture at 29905 Seven Mile Road,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
12263
2) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign area
for the proposed wall sign.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
4011. resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign Co. on behalf
of Comerica Bank requesting approval for one wall sign and the
utilization of the existing ground sign at 17111 N. Laurel Park Drive.
Mr. Miller: This is a refacing of an existing wall sign. What they will do,
there is an existing blue framing around the sign. They will keep
that and just reface Comerica Bank where the Manufacturers Bank
logo was. The ground sign will be the same. They willkeep the
blue frame around it and just reface the inner signage to Comerica.
The only new sign will be a little ATM sign. The wall sign would
be 64 square feet of signage and the ground sign, including the
small ATM sign, would be 61 square feet. That is allowed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-452-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign Co. on behalf
of Comerica Bank requesting approval for one wall sign and the
utilization of the existing ground sign at 17111 N. Laurel Park Drive,
be approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the sign plans dated 7/14/92 by Beacon Sign Co. , submitted on
behalf of Comerica Bank at 17111 N. Laurel Park Drive, is hereby
`►' approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Vital Signs on behalf of
Century 21 Chalet requesting approval for one wall sign at 33607 Seven
Mile Road.
Mr. Miller: This is a wall sign. It is proposed for a unit that is 42 feet
long in the front, so that allows a 42 square foot sign. The wall
sign is conforming. The problem is on this property there are two
ground signs and they are not allowed to have a wall sign with two
ground signs. They are going to have to either take down the
ground sign or get a variance.
Mr. LaPine: Isn't it true that wall sign was required to come down when they
put up the other one?
Mr. Miller: Yes. This is a Stamford Plaza monument sign for the whole plaza.
It was agreed once that went up that the tenant ground sign would
come down.
12264
Mr. LaPine: So no matter whether they go to ZBA or not, it remains a fact that
sign was to come down.
Mr. Miller: Right.
m, Jerry Beauregard, 33607 Seven Mile: I am a Realtor. I lease the building here. I
have two signs on the building. Been there since it was Dino's
Pizza. We took one sign down to remodel the building. All we are
requesting is to put the sign back up. All we want to do is put
the sign back up on that side of the building. It was taken down
and now we want to put it back up. We are allowed to put the sign
back up. You guys said you wanted a new design. We put in a new
design. That is the real story. We do have a sign on the other
end. I think that is a completely separate issue. We have two
separate signs and in my lease I have these. It is a 20-year lease
and I had the signage in there. We took the sign down to remodel.
I didn't remodel the developer remodeled, and now I want to put the
sign back up and somebody is saying no.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, I don't think you are hearing a problem with putting the
sign back up. I think what you are hearing is a problem with the
second wall sign, which is our understanding had been agreed would
come down. I am going to turn to Mr. Nagy on this.
Mr. Nagy: I think you really have to understand the history of the
development of the property to understand the problem with the wall
sign. The property that this tenant is in was developed first as a
free-standing, rectangular building with the narrowest dimension of
the rectangle facing on Seven Mile Road. It was an independent
building setting all by itself. They constructed a free-standing
sign and the tenants in that building had their individual wall
"n' signs. Subsequent to the development of that, the adjacent
property to the west was developed and another free-standing
building was constructed. Now we have two buildings comprising a
shopping center. The owner of this building became a partner in
the development of the adjacent property into a new overall
shopping center. When the shopping center was expanded, we now
have another rectangular building with now the narrowest dimension
facing Seven Mile Road. They decided to rename the new project to
Stamford Plaza. They then decided to put in another free-standing
sign to identify the project called Stamford Plaza. The debate
became, since there is now a merger of the two properties, whether
or not one of the two free-standing signs should come down. It has
been a problem between Code Enforcement whether as a combination of
the two properties into one integrated shopping center, whether
there should have been one or two signs. The tenants at the center
who want to have their own individual signs are caught in this
debate whether or not we have an integrated shopping center or
whether we have a shopping center that looks like a shopping center
with two separate properties. These tenants are caught in this
debate. All this tenant simply wants to do is put up a sign that
he is entitled to. It is simply a matter between the landlord of
the property and the Code Enforcement Division not a problem for
these tenants. These tenants are indirectly affected by the
landlords not being able to get together with Code Enforcement and
working out the problem.
12265
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, there has been a referral here to an agreement made at
some point, I assume when the sign application came in for Stamford
Plaza, that the owners agreed to remove the other free-standing
sign. Is that true?
Mr. Nagy: The owners agreed to it. The reason they are unwilling to do it is
they feel they will be subjecting themselves to a law suit because
Air
their tenant agreement gives the tenant a right to have a
free-standing sign.
Mr. McCann: I understand that but the agreement was made at the time Stamford
Plaza wanted to put up a free-standing sign. Correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: The owners of Stamford Plaza agreed at that time that one
free-standing sign, presumably the older one, would come down.
Correct?
Mr. Nagy: I can tell you that the record I saw showed on the issuance of the
sign permit that there was an agreement that the free-standing,
older sign would come down.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with this gentleman. He is entitled to his sign, he signed
a lease for it, but what you have is, unfortunately, this is the
owners' problem, which they created for themselves. Now they feel
they don't want to take it now because they signed leases and these
people are entitled to their two signs. This seems to be the
owner's problem that they created for themselves and if they feel
they have that obligation then he is right, he should be allowed
his two signs and the new monument sign for Stamford Plaza should
come down.
+a.r
Mr. Nagy: I am not in a position to say that.
Mr. McCann: Now he is stuck in the middle. Do we go against the ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: They do have relief to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to take
their case.
Mr. McCann: Who does?
Mr. Nagy: Either the landlord or the tenants through their landlord.
Mr. McCann: But the landlord does not have clean hands. Do you agree?
Mr. Nagy: I agree. The only way to get the two free-standing signs is
through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Beauregard: We took one sign down to remodel the building and now we can't put
it back up. I am being held hostage. We took one sign down,
remodeled the building and now we can't put the sign back up.
Mr. Engebretson: In order to get this new sign the property owners agreed the old
free-standing sign would come down. It has nothing to do with your
wall sign.
12266
Mr. LaPine: The gentleman has a legitimate argument. After the Stamford
addition they went back and remodeled the other portion. I live in
the area. Everybody else, when their portion of the building was
finished, put up their same signs they had before. At that time
nobody in the City questioned the fact that these signs could go
up. Now all of a sudden someone has questioned the fact that this
gentleman wants to put up his sign but he can't put up his sign. If
they were going to have an argument, they should have set it at the
time the first sign went up on the new addition. The question as
far as the free-standing sign is, what is wrong here is they
allowed the new Stamford sign to go up. They should have waited
until he took down the original free-standing sign before they
allowed the new free-standing sign. As far as I am concerned the
City should pursue it. I don't think we should hold this man
hostage but apparently we can't do nothing. We have to pass it on
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The fact remains, we are still
going to have that free-standing sign that was told to someone it
would come down.
Mr. Beauregard: There is only one sign on the side of the building. I need it for
the exposure. I think what I am hearing here is because of your
process that someone thinks I should be held hostage.
Mr. McCann: We can't take one sign and say you took one down you can put one
back up. It is not even within our power. We can't pass something
that doesn't come within the code. You still have to go to the
ZBA.
Mr. Beauregard: Why was I told to come here?
Mr. McCann: It is part of the process.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, is the original free-standing sign in violation?
Mr. Nagy: It was lawfully erected at the time.
Mr. Gniewek: Did it come in violation after they agreed to remove it?
Mr. Nagy: One or the other. Either the sign that was on the original
property is in violation or the one that now identifies Stamford
Plaza is in violation.
Mr. Gniewek: Has there been any violation notices issued by the Inspection
Department to either one of those signs?
Mr. Nagy: There has been a notice given but not a violation.
Mr. Beauregard: I was told by the Building Department to maintain it last week.
Mr. Gniewek: I would just indicate that the problem is not with your sign sir.
We all agree that you should get your sign put up. The problem is
you are going to have to go through another board before you can do
it. We can approve it this evening, however, before you can put it
up you are going to have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals
and they will have to make a determination not only of your sign
12267
but the existing signs on that property. There are too many signs
on the property. They are going to have to have the Inspection
Department issue a violation on one of those signs and make it a
condition to have that one removed before yours goes up. The
problem is not your sign. The problem is a sign that is already
existing.
Mr. Beauregard: I am sure something can be worked out on the one that is up there.
It is dated. It is old. I can work on that but I have to have my
signage on the building. I think this can be resolved.
Mr. Engebretson: We don't have the authority to allow you to do what you want to
do. You need the Zoning Board of Appeals to give you relief so
that you can do what you want to do. We will act on it tonight and
that begins the process.
Mrs. Fandrei: The free-standing sign beside your building, it can't be seen going
east because of the trees. As I drove by I don't recall being able
to see it until I was on top of it. All this fuss is over a sign
that can't be seen.
Mr. Beauregard: What we need most of all is to get this sign up.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is not my question.
Mr. Beauregard: Yes it is a dated sign with the height of the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is still not my question. It can't be seen because of the
trees. This is ridiculous.
Mr. Beauregard: It is not ridiculous. I may need some additional signage. I
\r. bargained for signage for two sides of a building and I paid for it
for six years.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is not what I am talking about. You are not hearing my point.
We are talking about the free-standing sign next to your office.
Mr. McCann: Last week we had the same discussion with the gentleman from the
sign company. He was to discuss it with you and either him or you
would get together with the landlord and ask them to appear tonight
to give a reasonable explanation to what they are going to do about
it. I haven't heard back from that. Why didn't they come tonight
to explain why they didn't take the other sign down?
Mr. Beauregard: First of all, if I took the other sign down, there would be no
signage at all. There was a request for the landlord to be here
but for whatever reason they couldn't be here.
Mr. McCann: Did you discuss this with them?
Mr. Beauregard: Yes we discussed this with them.
Mr. McCann: Did you ask them if they are going to take that sign down?
Mr. Beauregard: I am the one that bargained for two signs.
12268
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, to solve this whole thing, can we request the Inspection
Department to issue a violation against this to get the ball
rolling?
Mr. Engebretson: That is one way to go.
Mr. Tent: That is my suggestion.
Mr. Nagy: Whatever the Commission does tonight, whether you approve it,
recommend approval or whether you deny it, before they will be
issued a sign erection permit, they will have to make an appeal to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. An appeal has to be taken and the
whole matter then will be reviewed with Inspection in front of the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: At our study session we discussed this with our petitioner and if
they would have taken care of this we could have approved this
tonight. They wouldn't have to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Nagy: It has to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Tent: Because we are not taking action on the extra sign that is why it
has to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Nagy: The landlord's hands are tied because he has entered into a
binding contract with the tenant, who has 6 years left on that
contract for that sign.
Mr. McCann: He is not tied to that. He can take down his other sign. He knew
he had a contract to have that sign up when he made an agreement to
take it down.
vow
Mr. Nagy: I am trying to point out there was one landlord that owned one
building and then there was a joint venture with the two shopping
centers.
Mr. LaPine: You keep saying you have a letter that says you can put the sign
back up. Who is that letter from?
Mr. Beauregard: The landlord. What we are looking for is to get some signage on
the west side of the building.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we can do that. I think we have a couple of choices
here. I think we can approve your sign if there are no objections
to it, the objection being strictly relating to the second
freestanding ground sign. We could approve this sign subject to
the Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals giving their blessing.
The Council, because it is a control zone, and the Zoning Board of
Appeals, because you have an excessive number of ground signs or we
could approve the sign subject to the original ground sign being
removed, which would also require Council concurrence and then the
Zoning Board of Appeals wouldn't need to be troubled. Is that a
correct set of options John?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
12269
Mr. Engebretson: I definitely think this gentleman is caught between a rock and a
hard spot. I am going to find a way to get a sign on his west
elevation. I actually have very strong objections to the way this
thing has evolved in terms of the history of the new ground sign
replacing one that was going to come down. I don't think I want to
be on the side of approving this package subject to the Zoning
Board of Appeals permitting the two ground signs. I think I am
more inclined to support it in the form of the second one, that
being subject to the original free-standing sign coming down, but I
want your sign up.
Mr. Gniewek: I agree with you. I think that is a good way to go. However, the
petitioner or the landlord could still, at that point, appeal the
second sign to let the sign remain there. I agree with you. I
think the best way is to approve this subject to the first sign
coming down and then it is left to the landlord to take that down
or get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-453-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Vital Signs on behalf of
Century 21 Chalet requesting approval for one wall sign at 33607 Seven
Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plans dated 8/4/92 by Vital Signs submitted on behalf
of Century 21 Chalet at 33607 Seven Mile Road, are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the free-standing sign being
Is. removed.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
The next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Intercity Neon Inc. on
behalf of Boston Chicken Restaurant requesting approval of one wall sign
at 37100 Six Mile Road.
Mr. Miller: This is located in the Laurel Commons Shopping Center. They are
proposing two wall signs, one on the south elevation and one on the
west elevation. The south elevation will face Six Mile Road and
the west elevation will face the parking lot. The south elevation
would be 44 square feet and the west elevation would be 13 square
feet. They are only allowed one wall sign so they would have to go
to the ZBA for two.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is the little sign with the neon, is that part of the 20% window
sign.
Mr. Miller: Yes, it is only 10 square feet of the window.
Mrs. Fandrei: So they are allowed another 10 square feet for other window signs?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
12270
James Riley: I am with Boston Chicken Inc. Our intentions are to get two signs.
What we attempted to do was stay under the total aggregate signage
of the allowed square footage with the two signs. Our need is to
expedite at least one conforming sign for the opening date. I
understand the process will take longer for the Zoning Board. I
don't know if we need to make two separate applications or one or
Nor which would be the best way to go about it.
Mr. Engebretson: John, can we approve in part and delay the second part of this so
he can get under way?
Mr. Nagy: Since it is conditional, I think you have to deal with one
application singularly or treat them both and have them go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. You are better off to treat it as it is
now before you for two wall signs.
Mr. Engebretson: One proposal, two signs. Does that delay his ability to get the
sign up?
Mr. Nagy: He could get a temporary banner for his opening for 30 days.
Mr. Gniewek: John, one of the signs we are approving is a conforming sign. We
are approving two signs, the second sign subject to approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Why couldn't he put up the sign that was
legal as far as the ordinance was concerned and then appeal the
second sign as a separate item.
Mr. Nagy: He could do that but then his application would be different.
Mr. Gniewek: Then it would be faster for us to do it that way and then he could
put up a permanent sign. This is a control zone. He still has to
`► go to Council. I am trying to figure the fastest way to get him a
permanent sign that he wouldn't have to worry about putting up and
taking down.
Mr. Engebretson: When is your opening date?
Mr. Beauregard: Currently we are looking at September 14th.
Mr. Engebretson: You will never get all of this done by then.
Mr. Gniewek: I propose we approve both signs and let them work it out with the
staff as to how to proceed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-454-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Intercity Neon Inc. on
behalf of Boston Chicken Restaurant requesting approval of one wall sign
at 37100 Six Mile Road be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan #B435D dated 8/14/92 by Intercity Neon Inc. ,
submitted on behalf of Boston Chicken at 37100 Six Mile Road, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
12271
2) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals permitting multiple wall
signs on property with a business center having four or more
separate business uses.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
Air
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei: I just noted in your handout they have a number of awnings with
carry-out, prepared food etc. Is that going to be happening on
this building?
Mr. Beauregard: No. That is a different location that we have operating now.
Awnings are not going to be a part of this package at any time.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 648th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on August 25, 1992 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i
J
es C. McCann, Secretary
I
ATTEST: ciL- ill 'o0tS11-t
JaCk Engebjetson, Chairman
jg