HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-12-17 11849
MINUTES OF THE 635th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 17, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
Now
held its 635th 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 21 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Conrad Gniewek
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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. 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.
In the absence of Mrs. Fandrei, Mr. Tent was the Acting Secretary.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
91-10-1-20 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Myron and Whitby in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-2 to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the Planning Commission is the petitioner in this case, I
think it would be appropriate to just mention briefly that this is
for all intents and purposes a housekeeping procedure. This very
small section of that building was zoned C-2 by the Council to
accommodate a special use there that is now a permitted use within
the C-1 district. They were well aware of that when they granted
that zoning and now what we are doing is proposing to revert back
to the original proper zoning for that space, which would bring it
into compliance with not only the Master Plan but the rest of the
11850
building. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak
for or against this rezoning petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-189-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
17, 1991 on Petition 91-10-1-20 by the City Planning Commission
proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between Myron and Whitby in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-2
to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 91-10-1-20 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the zoning
designation of the balance of the Stamford Plaza Shopping Center.
2) That the proposed zoning district will accommodate the existing use
in the subject portion of the shopping center building.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning in the area.
4) That the proposed zoning change as initiated by the Planning
Commission is consistent with the Commission's policy of removing
imcompatible spot zoning districts.
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.
`141.0. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-11-1-21 by Paul Lay for Orfeo Corona and Aldo Liberatore requesting
to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road
and Maplewood Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from OS to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent
(60' ) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, should this particular petition be approved as far as
C-1, local commercial, what will the parking requirements be that
will be required in that particular area? Will they be sufficient
as they are presently with the OS?
Mr. Nagy: The off-street parking requirements are different for retail sales
or commercial as opposed to office. The ratio is for every 200
square feet of floor area in office, you need one parking space.
For retail use, for every 150 square feet of floor area, you need
one parking space, so the off-street parking component is higher
11851
for retail. Since the building and site development was predicated
on the existing zoning, office serices, to change the
classification and use to retail would leave this site deficient in
off-street parking.
Mr. Gniewek: We might be as many as 20 or more spaces short at this site.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Morrow: Did they ever receive a waiver for office services or was this one
that went from P.S. to O.S.?
Mr. Nagy: This went from P.S. to O.S. without a waiver.
Mr. Morrow: With our new ordinance we did give some additional latitude for use
of the space?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes, over and above what was previously allowed. Would the
petitioner please come forward. Please state your name and address
for the record and tell us why you are making this request.
Paul Lay, 37000 Grand River, Suite 290, Farmington Hills 48335: I represent the
two petitioners, Mr. Liberatore and Mr. Corona, who are both
present here in the auditorium this evening. The main purpose of
making this petition for the rezoning is that unfortunately they
have had some poor experience in trying to lease this lovely
building that they constructed. Since the early part of 1989 they
have only been able to lease approximately 20% of this building.
There is one small office, which is basically an office of just
over 800 square feet, and there is another tenant that has some
type of a sales type of operation and he has just over 800 feet.
The comment about the parking, it seems to me there is an adequate
amount of parking, at least as far as the few offices that are
r44ft► located there. The parking is in the front of the building and
also on the side of the building over on the Maplewood Street side.
There is no parking behind the building so they wouldn't disturb
any of the residential neighbors that are south of the subject
premises. Just recently, since the time that we filed this
petition on October 30th, we have had further communication from
other prospective tenants. Unfortunately they have all been the
retail variety. One woman contacted my clients and indicated she
would like to put in a nail salon and I don't think that would have
too much traffic and parking. In addition, there was a florist who
contacted my clients and said he would be interested in a location.
It is an excellent location. There is quite a bit of traffic going
by Seven Mile Road just a short distance east of Middlebelt Road.
Because of the economic situation though, unfortunately with all of
the competition in these office buildings that are close by, my
clients are not able to lease the remaining space and it does seem
in looking at the property, and I have been there and viewed it
both inside and outside, it would appear that this is very
compatible and would be very fine as far as the C-1, the commercial
zoning, would be concerned.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Right now you have 33 parking spaces?
11852
Mr. Lay: We have 37.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If you were going to go to C-1 that would be 150 square feet and
would make 43 spaces, you would still be six spaces short.
Mr. Lay: That would be correct.
Now
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many tenants can go in this building at this time? You have
two already. How many more can you accommodate?
Mr. Lay: It depends on how much space is needed. As far as the partitions
inside the building, they haven't been put in yet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the maximum?
Mr. Lay: Mr. Liberatore can answer that. He is very familiar with the
situation and is certainly happy to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Liberatore: Ten altogether.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Let's say you had ten businesses in there. You would end up with
four spaces and you would have one or two employees, you are still
going to be short on parking spaces for customers. That is our
point. You don't have enough space and you have no place to go.
Mr. Liberatore: There is a church and restaurant close by. I could make a deal
with the restaurant for the employees to park there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that to the west of you?
Mr. Liberatore: Right.
'Nr Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Vyhnalek, I don't think we ought to get too far down that
line of reasoning because the situation is we deal with an
ordinance that defines the parking requirements for various zoning
districts and you just barely meet the parking requirements for an
office district. You are substantially short of parking in spite
of what your attorney feels would be adequate parking. We deal not
with subjective points of view. We deal with an ordinance. If you
were to make a deal with the restaurant next door, then they would
be deficient.
Mr. Liberatore: If I could make the parking spaces nine feet, I could meet the
requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: You can't do that. The ordinance also specifies ten feet. You
could not meet the ordinance in any way, shape or form by
re-striping the parking short of double decking it. Since there
are no other questions at this time, I am going to take the
opportunity to deal with a couple of points and questions of my
own. When you built that building two years ago, what was your
logic behind constructing an office building in the face of a glut
of office space that existed in the City then as now?
Mr. Liberatore: I kind of gambled. I figured I would take a chance.
11853
Mr. Engebretson: I don't really honestly know that the office vacancies are
substantially different today than they were two years ago. We
have had an oversupply of office space for some time. When I went
to look at this facility, I would agree with your attorney's
position, it is a lovely building. It is also my opinion that
building was constructed from the beginning with some speculative
New positioning that maybe it should or could be used for retail space.
It is highly unusual for an office building to be completely
fronted with glass and ten doors.
Mr. Liberatore: I figured if I ran into a problem I would have it rezoned, maybe
to commercial.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to also draw your attention to the fact there are an
overabundance of commercial zoning districts, which are occupied by
what are commonly referred to as strip malls, throughout the City.
This is a source of great frustration for many people and you need
to know that a lot of people that have those kinds of facilities
are also having trouble leasing out spaces, so guess what they want
to do, upgrade from C-1 to C-2 for more intense type of commercial
facilities. I guess the point is that what we are concerned about
is that when buildings are constructed for one use, if the builders
who lease those facilities out aren't successful, the upgrading of
the intensity of the zoning district, while it appears to be a
Band-Aid kind of solution, it carries along with it some other
problems and it is just a bad policy to do that kind of thing. We
are not insensitive to the fact that having that very nice building
there for two years vacant is a problem but there are other kinds
of problems that would be created by trying to solve every business
problem through rezoning. It just can't be done. Moving up to
C-1, while it may give you an opportunity to negotiate leases with
some prospective tenants, that in itself is not necessarily going
to guarantee success of leasing out the entire building for the
reasons I have just mentioned. Your biggest single problem is you
don't meet the parking requirements and it is not that you don't
meet it by a few spaces, you miss it by a long shot. For that
reason alone, I would find it very difficult to support the
rezoning. I am not saying I have made my mind up but it is a
significant point that cannot be overlooked.
Mr. Lay: It was my understanding the requirement was 43 and we have 37
available.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If there are four or more tenants, it goes to 125 square feet for
every parking space, which would be 54 so you would be 21
deficient.
Mr. Lay: It is possible to have a fewer number of tenants but have a larger
space. For example, Mr. Liberatore was talking to a possible
furniture store moving in. We had that possibility a very short
time ago. Presumably that might take half the space or more and
that would be in the center of the building.
Mr. Engebretson: That is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about
the specific request to deal with that specific case. We are
11854
talking about rezoning period and rezoning could result in ten
stores in there or more than four, which according to the ordinance
would create a demand for 54 parking spaces, which would be
approximately 20 spaces short.
Mike Ragan, 18921 Maplewood: I am the fifth house from the corner on the street we
are talking about. I have two concerns. One is because of the
parking restrictions, which are quite obvious when you look at the
area. I am concerned if it goes to the rezoning that is proposed,
we could quite possibly get some overflow parking down the street
or along the first property line or across from there. That would
complicate the traffic flow for the residents going in and out.
Secondly, I just recently, as recently as this evening, spoke to
the administration of the church across the street and they are
unable to be here tonight. I have had a long standing relation
with them being a member there and they have expressed their
concern that this particular property not be changed simply because
there would be very likely a parking overflow. They have a problem
with that already with the businesses that are around there now,
specifically often times when church services may still be in
session on Sunday, they have overflow parking from restaurants and
other businesses across the street. They don't want to complicate
that. Also the near proximity of the building to the church and
the possibility of certain businesses going in there, especially
beer and wine stores, is a concern to the people and especially the
administration of the church. That is the two areas and my own
personal concerns would be A and B of the church's concerns. I
would like to say you gentlemen did a very fine job on the
building. There is absolutely nothing that can be said as far as
the quality of the building. It is exemplary and I do express some
sympathy for the people, however, as you have said sir, I can't see
making problem B in order to solve problem A.
Mr. LaPine: Because of the proximity of this building to the Livonia Mall,
Seven Mile Road is a very heavily travelled road going to and from
the shopping center and by putting another commercial establishment
along there, all we are doing is going to add to the problem of the
traffic along Seven Mile Road. With office service, basically
people work in the office and are there for the whole day not
coming and going as you would if there were a commercial
establishment. I think this was borne out by when Sutherlands Fish
& Chips was there, especially on Friday nights. There was a
tremendous amount of traffic coming and going out of there and to
get out onto Seven Mile Road sometimes was quite a problem so for
us to allow a C-1 to go in there, I think all we are going to do is
to add to our already existing traffic problems in the area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-11-1-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-190-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
17, 1991 on Petition 91-11-1-21 by Paul Lay for Orfeo Corona and Aldo
11855
Liberatore requesting to rezone property located on the southwest corner
of Seven Mile Road and Maplewood Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
12 from OS to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 91-11-1-21 be denied for the following
reasons:
'11ow. 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which designates the subject property as "Office".
2) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage commercial uses
to locate in the existing building thereby causing a substantial
deficiency in off-street parking.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage further easterly
expansion of commercial zoning along Seven Mile Road in the subject
area, which expansion would be in conflict with the Future Land
Use Plan and the Commission's policy of eliminating strip
commercial zoning along the Mile Road corridors.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent
residential uses to the south.
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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-11-2-30 by Perry Drug Stores, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a SDD license for an existing drug store located on the south
`41a► side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River Avenue and Inkster Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the waiver use proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward.
William Beach: I am with the law firm of Miller, Canfield at 150 W. Jefferson in
the City of Detroit. I am here with Warren Jeffrey, who is the
Regional Vice President of Perry Drug Stores and Ted Stuwicki, who
is the District Manager of the location we are talking about. We
are here to discuss the request of Perry Drug Stores to move the
SDD license from its current location in the shopping center on
Eight Mile Road next to the Farmer Jacks to the Perry Drug Stores
across the street on the other side of Grand River. A little
history might be helpful at this point in time. Perry Drug Stores
opened the store on Grand River in the summer of 1984. At that
time the location next to Farmer Jacks, the drug store was owned by
Revco. In 1988 Perrys secured an SDD license for its Eight Mile
location and in 1990 Revco Drug Store filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy and Perry Drug Store purchased a number of the stores
11856
throughout the entire state. As part of the package they picked up
the store on Grand River next to the Farmer Jacks. The result is
they have two stores across the street from each other and in
making a business decision, the store that has the greatest volume
of business is the Perry location on Grand River so the future
plans are to close the store next to Farmer Jacks. Before doing
that they would like to transfer the SDD license from that store to
Grand River. There are no other SDD licenses within the amount of
feet stated in the ordinance. There are no churches or schools
within the area. The SDD license is just being moved across the
street so it would not substantially or not at all change the
character of the neighborhood. I think all of the intent and
protections that are built into the ordinance would remain if you
were to permit the transfer of the license to the Perry Drug Store
on Grand River. I am here to answer any of the questions that the
Commission may have. Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Stuwicki are also here.
If you have any questions on store hours, store policy, etc. they
would be more than happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Tent: I have no objection at this point with the liquor license being
approved for the area but I do have a concern with your parking.
You are 47 parking spaces deficient. In other words, with the
extension and addition you are putting on the building, you require
155 spaces and you only come up with 108. You are 47 spaces short.
How do you propose to handle that? I have been out to the area. I
know you have a lot of traffic. You have a lot of people coming in
there. Are they going to be parking on the street?
Mr. Jeffrey: We are not putting an addition on to Perry Drug Stores. As far as
we know, we have sufficient parking in the area for the operation
of the store.
Nifty Mr. Tent: You had gone to the ZBA to get approval for a variance.
Mr. Nagy: He is the tenant of the shopping center and not the owner.
Mr. LaPine: The owners of the center went to ZBA. Perry Drugs is not deficient
in parking.
Mr. Tent: There is a deficiency and that does concern me and I am wondering
how that will be handled?
Mr. Jeffrey: I am not familiar with what the plans of the landlord are at this
site as far as expansion. We don't have any knowledge of that. We
do know as far as Perrys is concerned, I have 115 stores under my
region. This store has more than ample parking compared to most of
my other stores. We operate a good number of drug stores with a
lot less parking that may have the same type of facility with a SDD
license.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, what happened with the expansion. Is that going through,
and if it is then they are 47 spaces short. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: The owner of the overall center did appear before the Planning
Commission approximately two years ago to expand the retail store
11857
complex. Initially it was recommended for approval by the City
Planning Commission and concurred in at the Council level. They
didn't commence that construction within a one-year period. Before
that one-year period ran out they had the right to ask for an
extension of that approval. The extension was reviewed by the
Planning Commission and it was recommended for denial, the
omr principal reason being the deficiency. With enlarging the center
you have the problem of both increasing the amount of off-street
parking spaces required for expansion and the building itself takes
up the already existing parking spaces so there is a shortfall of
47 parking spaces. That was the basis for the denial for the
expansion of that center. The landlord then took an appeal to that
recommendation and it was approved at the Council level and an
off-street parking variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The landlord has indicated to us that he will now commence that
construction. The construction will begin this spring. The
petitioner tonight, however, is a tenant in the building. As a
result of their use tonight, it does not increase their building
area. It does not increase their floor area. There is no
additional expansion of the building area. All they are doing is
adding to their product line by requesting the sale of packaged
liquor. They are not really intensifying the building area.
Mr. Tent: So what they are doing they are within their realm of usability of
the property. So when are we going to get a shot at these 47
parking spaces?
Mr. Engebretson: It is my understanding, Ray, that the Zoning Board of Appeals has
granted a variance to the ordinance that gives them the right to
occupy the square footage, not only what is there but what is
approved, within the parking layout that was part of that revised
plan. So comparing this with the case we just heard, these people
limey are in compliance because they have a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals so I think it is a moot point with regard to this
particular case. I am not trivializing the importance of the
parking issue but what we are here to deal with tonight is the fact
that they have a permitted use there, they are looking to expand
their product line to include the SDD products and moving it from
one store to another.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman I appreciate what you said and I understand it
completely but what I wanted to throw in at this public hearing was
the ZBA's action. It seems every time there is a variance in
parking, they approve them all. If we continue to allow this type
of parking lot development, we are going to have parking meters
alongside these buildings. Somewhere along the way the ZBA has to
step up their responsibility and stop approving all these variances
on a wholesale basis.
Mr. LaPine: As a former member of 23 years on the Zoning Board of Appeals, I
wish to tell you that the Zoning Board of Appeals, in all the years
I was there and we granted a lot of variances of parking, we didn't
do it just haphazardly and I think the board that sits there today
looks at these things and in their judgment do what they feel is in
the best interest of the petitioner and the City. I don't think
11858
they are doing this just to grant variances. To the gentleman from
Perry Drugs, it is my understanding that the store across the
street on the west side is going to close and you are going to move
it across the street with the liquor license. I believe you said
the store on the east side of Grand River had a larger volume than
the one on the west side. Is that correct?
Now Mr. Jeffrey: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I am curious about that because I would think the store on the west
side, because it is surrounded by a subdivision, that you would
have gotten more business from them and I guess my worry here is
because of the location on the east side at Eight Mile and Grand
River, you can see it better from those areas and I assume you are
going to get a lot of transient business for the packaged liquor
and that is a problem with me. When it was on the west side, it
was kind of behind the Nibble Nook Restaurant and you couldn't see
it that well so for that reason it probably didn't do as big a
volume of packaged liquor as the store across the street is going
to do. Is that a valid reason why you feel that store would do
better?
Mr. Jeffrey: You asked two questions. First off, the reason that the Perry
Store is doing more volume, we spent eight years selling that
business. Revco, unfortunately, has had a lot of problems and has
filed for Chapter 11. We are doing more than twice the business at
the Perry Store that the former Revco did so in order for us to
remain profitable, we need to move the business into our present
location whether or not the SDD comes with it. As far as us
increasing the liquor sales just on the sheer volume alone,
certainly you are right. That potential is there. For it to be a
powerhouse drawing liquor sales from a large area, my experience
`'r► hasn't been that. We don't run liquor stores per se. More than
half our business is pharmacy.
Mr. LaPine: If you weren't able to transfer the license over to that location,
you would still make the move?
Mr. Jeffrey: That is not my place to say. It would have to be a business
decision that would have to be made now or later. We would have to
take into consideration leases and occupancy costs and all that
type of thing.
Mr. LaPine: I have no big objection because all we are doing is moving it from
one location to another. We are not increasing SDD licenses in the
area.
Mr. Tent: How are you proposing to dispense the liquor? Will you have it
behind the counter or on the open shelves?
Mr. Jeffrey: Most definitely behind the counter. It will be attended completely
and would not be self serve. It will be an enclosed counter and
the only way you could get served would be by a clerk.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the sale be concluded at that point?
11859
Mr. Jeffrey: Yes. You are going to have to pay for it and have it in a bag as
you exit.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-11-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
4r.
#12-191-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
17, 1991 on Petition 91-11-2-30 by Perry Drug Stores, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a SDD license for an existing drug store
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River Avenue
and Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
91-11-2-30 be approved for the following reasons:
1) 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.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That petitioner is proposing to relocate an existing SDD license as
opposed to requesting utilization of a new license, therefore,
there is no net gain in the sale of liquor for this 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.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-12-2-31 by Narciso Ruano, Nobuko Mitchell and Timothy Mitchell
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
in an existing building located on the north side of Six Mile Road
between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
no deficiencies or problems were found, therefore, they have no
objections to this proposal. A letter has also been received from
the Traffic Department stating (1) the site is in an established
center with established traffic patterns that should pose no new
traffic problems. (2) The parking in the lot appears to be close
11860
to capacity now. With the addition of 17 more required spaces,
this could cause a parking problem. Lastly, we have received a
letter from the Fire Marshal stating their office has no objection
to this proposal.
Timothy Mitchell, 22111 Ridgedale, Oak Park: What we would like to do is open up a
Japanese bakery. There are already three other Japenese businesses
in the mall and all of our business would come from the Japanese
people that are already shopping in the mall at the grocery store
and restaurant that are already there. There is a travel agency
and a bookstore that are Japanese owned. You already have the
traffic there and it is very convenient for the Japanese people.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Mitchell, are you going to be the proprietor of this bakery or
are you leasing the space?
Mr. Mitchell: We are leasing the space. We are the owners.
Mr. Tent: You call it a bakery. Will you be serving baked goods? Can you
tell me what your menu is?
Mr. Mitchell: Our main items are Japanese bakery items. We do have a few food
items on the menu.
Mr. Tent: For instance
Mr. Mitchell: Mostly hot noodles and soup.
Mr. Tent: Would carry-out be available?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes.
Mr. Tent: In addition to the bakery, will there be any beverages dispensed?
Mr. Mitchell: Coffee, tea. No liquor.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to your having a bakery there. You said there
are three other Japanese establishments there and you would be
getting business from them and I gathered from that they would go
here and buy whatever they want and would come to you and buy their
bakery goods but when you get into another restaurant at that site,
I have a problem. Could you operate there just as a bakery and not
as a restaurant?
Mr. Mitchell: It is the custom of the Japanese people to sit down and eat their
bakery goods and drink tea. If we opened up just as a bakery, we
would not be able to provide that service.
Mr. LaPine: What would you have that the other Japanese establishments do not
have?
Mr. Mitchell:• What we are serving, you cannot buy this outside of Los Angeles,
California. We imported these machines from Japan to prepare these
bakery goods and there are no other restaurants in Michigan or
outside of Los Angeles that serve these items.
11861
Mr. LaPine: There is a Japanese restaurant in there. The baked goods you
prepare, you couldn't buy in this establishment?
Mr. Mitchell: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: Would you sell your baked goods to this establishment so he could
sell them at his restaurant?
'\r.
Mr. Mitchell: That hasn't been discussed. I would say no.
Mr. LaPine: Is your main business a bakery business or a restaurant business?
Mr. Mitchell: It is a bakery business.
Mr. McCann: If I understand you correctly, what you are doing is making a small
Japanese type village there that people will get to know all three
of you. Do you believe this will benefit the other restaurant as
well as benefit you?
Mr. Mitchell: I think it would help all of the Japanese businesses.
Mr. McCann: Is the owner of the property here tonight?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Is it possible for her to come down and answer a couple of
questions.
Melissa Jenkins of Ross Financial, 31360 Northwestern Hwy. came forward to answer
any questions.
Mr. McCann: One of the concerns here is that you are going to have numerous
restaurants in the mall. There is a rumor going around that James
Roast Beef is closing down. Is that true?
Ms. Jenkins: Not that I am aware of. I believe he might be trying to sell his
business but his lease isn't over for another 2 1/2 years.
Mr. McCann: That is the only question I have.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I was in a couple of stores and they said James Roast Beef was
going to close.
Ms. Jenkins: We have had several restaurants call us over the years saying the
same thing and he says he is in okay financial shape.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mitchell, getting right down to the question of without the
seats your business would not be viable. Without this waiver would
this preclude you from opening your bakery?
Mr. Mitchell: In this location yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: You feel you have to be in close proximity to that Japanese
restraurant in order to survive?
11862
Mr. Mitchell: We would not open up this bakery without other Japanese businesses
in the immediate area.
Mr. Engebretson: Now we will go to the audience to see if there is anyone who
would like to speak for or against the granting of this waiver.
Paul Benvenuti, 37147 Bennett: I am the resident directly behind this complex. I
just have two questions. One to the Planning Commission.
Currently there exists in the northeast corner of this complex at
the rear of the building a trash dumpster. My concern, being a
resident back there, is there any intentions because of a new
restaurant to build an additional dumpster to support the trash
disposal? In addition, I didn't hear anything regarding the hours
of operation of this particular business. I have been at this
residence for approximately a year and a half and have seen the
traffic behind there increase substantially. I have also had
several problems with the existing restaurant back there such as
debris coming over the wall, etc. , which may not be an issue but it
has been a problem.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would it be safe to assume that the existing dumpster
facilities would be adequate to serve the needs of a business of
this size?
Mr. Nagy: It would be my estimation that they would. If they would not, we
would then look to the landlord to see that it was emptied out more
frequently.
Ms. Jenkins: If there is an issue with trash or anything they can call our
office. This is the first I have heard of this being a problem.
Call 737-0000 and we will address this.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Could he answer the gentleman's question regarding the hours of
operation?
Mr. Mitchell: The hours would be from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. , seven days a week
except for holidays.
Merlin Heidelmeyer, 17271 Fitzgerald: I am further away than my neighbor and he
brought up about the rubbish. I hear them dump that in the morning
and it shakes me out of my bed. What I came down for, I checked
around on the four corners and came up with 17 restaurants. We got
Chinese. We got Japanese. We have possibly a MacDonalds being up
at Six Mile Road. We got a Ground Round and Bill Knapps. We have
Max & Irma's in Laurel Park and a Coney Island. We have Olga's and
Little Caeser's, etc. We have a lot of different types of
restaurants in there. When I have a barbecue in my back yard I
don't know what I am eating. Now we are going to have a bakery in
there.
Carl Deal, 17334 Fitzgerald: I am right across the street from Mr. Heidelmeyer. I
think really what we should be paying attention to this evening is
the fact that for those of us that have shopped in that center,
there is a pizzeria, Pappa Romano's. There is Century 21. I think
we are all familiar with that. There is a bulk food. There used
to be a Sony establishment. There is a Quick Print. That is a
11863
very congested shopping center and I really don't think there is
enough parking space to afford a bakery/restaurant. Sometime, if
you haven't in the past, drive by and try to find a parking place.
It is very, very difficult. Coupled with that I don't know what
the width of the parking spaces have to be Mr. Nagy, but it seems
to me they are at the minimum right now. I think what we should do
,Nur is look in terms of if they are going to grant any kind of waiver
for parking, I think they should look twice before they do that.
Again, the parking is a problem and I think it should be reviewed
entirely before this is acted upon.
Mr. Tent: I did drive through there and I echo your sentiments because I
couldn't find a parking space. To me I feel it is overbuilt so
your observation agrees with mine. I think we have a deficiency
there and it could be a problem.
Ms. Jenkins: He is correct that there is quite a bit of parking. We do enjoy
the luxury of a 95% full shopping center. Two things I would like
to point out. He did mention a Papa Romano's Pizza. That is a
100% strictly carry-out facility so there is no long parking for
that establishment. Secondly, this bakery that is going in is
intended to what we would say feed off the other Japanese uses
within the shopping center so the majority of this person's
customers will be those shoppers that are already there.
Mr. Morrow: There is a Japanese restaurant. What are the other Japanese uses
in there?
Ms. Jenkins: Akasaka, which is a Japanese restaurant. There is Kayama Shaten,
which is a Japanese grocery store. There is a company called JBC,
Japan Book Center, and they have a store which deals entirely in
books in the Japanese language. There is also a travel agency
that is Japanese owned and they have a great Japanese following.
Mr. Morrow: How many seats could he have within that bakery?
Mr. Nagy: The bakery itself is a permitted use. There would be no
consumption of food or beverage allowed within a bakery and that is
why he is appearing before you to get a variance granted so food
and beverages can be served.
Mr. Morrow: I have a concern about the restaurant waiver portion of it. I
think the gentleman has a viable bakery but coupled with the
requirement of a sit-down form of restaurant within that center, as
we pointed out it is a very busy center, for that reason I do have
difficulty with the petition.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Mitchell, if conditions were put on this particular waiver use
that only baked goods could be served and no other food items, just
the baked goods and your beverages that you would normally serve,
would that be a problem?
Mr. Mitchell: I cannot answer that. My parents are also owners and they are in
Japan right now so I would have to speak with them.
11864
Ms. Jenkins: When I mentioned noodles as being an item, it would be what
we perceive as being a danish pastry. They would eat a rice ball
with sweet beans. To them that is a dessert item.
Mr. Gniewek: He would serve dessert items as opposed to hot dogs, hamburgers,
sandwiches.
Mr. Engebretson: I disagree with the premise that the parking load on this
center's parking lot would not be increased because of the people,
by definition, are already going to be there shopping at some other
Japanese facility. I don't think that is the case. I think people
are as likely to come here for whatever products they are buying
and it will attract additional traffic. I live near this shopping
center and I have been in there exactly twice. I won't go there
unless I have to because you can't find a parking space and the
parking spaces are narrow and I don't feel comfortable parking my
car there so I just don't use that shopping center. I think the
fact that I feel that way is irrelevant. I think the fact that the
Police Department feels the parking is overused and that this would
compound that problem and it is on that basis that I am going to
oppose this waiver use.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-12-2-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-192-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
17, 1991 on Petition 91-12-2-31 by Narciso Ruano, Nobuko Mitchell and
Timothy Mitchell requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of
Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-12-2-31 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.03 of the
Zoning Ordinance #I543.
2) That there are currently two restaurants in operation within the
subject shopping center and, therefore, there is no need for
expanded food services.
3) That this area of the City is already sufficiently served with
restaurant type uses.
4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
5) That the proposed use will substantially add to the parking load of
this shopping center, which is already used to capacity, thereby
compounding the parking problems for this center.
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.
11865
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add a comment. There was reference made earlier
that Papa Romano's was exclusively a carry-out restaurant and I
think it has been within the last year that Papa Romano's proposed
to add seating and we denied that and it was not appealed to the
City Council. That denial was based in a large part on the fact
that the parking is a problem and it is an overused facility.
e,`
Mr. Morrow: I am going to vote in favor of the denying motion but I would urge
the petitioner to strongly consider conforming to the permitted
uses within that center. It sounds like it is something people
will drive to secure and not necessarily have to sit down but that
is just my opinion. I would encourage him to operate within the
permitted use.
Mr. Gniewek: I would echo Mr. Morrow's sentiments on that particular subject. I
think the bakery would fit into the center but I do have a problem
with 30 seats and a waiver use in that area.
Mr. Engebretson: For the record I agree with you.
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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#12-193-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 634th Regular Meeting held on December
3, 1991 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-194-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
91-12-8-21 by Daniels and Zermack Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to renovate an existing building and construct a new
drive up banking canopy on the north side of Five Mile just west of
Middlebelt in Section 14, subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 9007 Sheet SP-1 dated 12/4/91 prepared by Daniels and
Zermack Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
11866
2) That Building Plan 9007 Sheet SP-3 dated 12/4/91 prepared by
Daniels and Zermack Associates, Inc. is hereby approved except for
the wall sign shown on the east building elevation which is
nonconforming and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
3) That the Landscape Plan 9007 Sheet SP-2 dated 12/4/91 prepared by
Daniels and Zermack Associates, Inc. is hereby approved with the added
condition that all landscaping on site be irrigated instead of just
around the perimeter of the building.
4) That the proposed second drive approach to Five Mile shall be
constructed in full compliance with both City and County standards for
ingress and egress.
5) That the units on top shall be shielded from the view of pedestrian
and motor traffic by screening such as an extension of the parapet
wall and the screen and units shall be painted the same color as
the building.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 635th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on December 17, 1991 was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Raymo W. Tent, Actin Secretary
ATTEST: =I c r C illp
Jack' Engebretkon, Chairman
jg