Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-07-1018634 MINUTES OF TBE 827ia REGULARMEETING GELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 10, 2001, the City Phmving Commission of the City of Livonia held its 8271e Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan Mr. James C. McCarm, Chairman, called the meeting to order A 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas H G. Shave Dan Piemecchi Elaine Koms W111iam Lapme Members absent: Now Messrs. Mark Taomtina, Planning Director, At Nowak, Plainer IV, Scott Miller, Planner III and Bill Poppenger, Planner I were also present There were approximately 35 to 40 people in attendance. Ch maran McCarm informed the audience that if a petition on toughYs agenda involves a rezoning request this Commission makes arecorumendation to the City Council who, in Nm, will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The ComanissimYs recommendation is forwarded to the City Comord for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied taught the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolution adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days atter the date of adoption. the Planning Commission mission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings taught We will begin with the MisceOoncous Site Plans for or agenda ITEM#1 PETITION 2001-06-08-19 Angelo D'Orazio Mr. Piemecchi, Secretary, announced the for item on the agenda is Petition 2001-06-08-19 by Angelo D'Omzzio requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to coustnud an addition to the office building located at 15530 Faroungfon Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington between Five Mile and Rayburn. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to the existing office building located on the subject site. This building was most recently utilized as a real estate office. As it stands now, the existing building is 1,645 sq. ft in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a "L" shaped addition that would wrap around the north and east elevations. The proposed 18635 addition would be 2,013 sq. It. in area The completed structure would measure 62 It. by 59 It. and have an enlarged footprint of 3,658 sq. It. To accommodate the addition, the lay" of the existing parking lot would be redesigned Required parking is 15 spaces. Parking provided is 17 spaces. A new enclosed trash dumpster area would be located at the northeast corner of the proposed parking lot The petitioner has explained that this location was chosen because A would be adjacent to the existing enclosure of Poe office building to the north A note on the plan indicates that the three walls of the enclosure would be constructed out of block identical to that proposed for the building. The Landscape Plan shows that the parking lot would be screened from Farmington Road by a lY3o 2 It. high landscape hemi. Thus greenbelt strip would be 8 It. wide and planted with a combination of trees and shrubs. With the exception of sone trees and shrubs planted up near the building, the majority of the proposed landscaping firs this office budding world consist of lawn area. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site. Proposed landscaping is 20% of the site. The existing budding is constructed out of painted brick on three elevations, with the east in rear elevation made up of painted block The submitted Building Elevation Plans show that the new addition world be constructed out of both brick and block the west elevation (facing Farmington) would be constructed out of brick Anote on the plan explains that the painted brick on this elevation would be removed and replaced with new4-inch face brick The north elevation would also be constructed out ofbrick The east elevation of the addition, which would become the new rem elevation of the structure, world be constructed entirely out of painted block. The only renovation to the south elevation would be having its brick repainted tri atchthecolorofthenewbrick. Anewstandingseammetalmirwardroof would replace the existing roof Mr. McCain: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taomuna: Theneawflre itprasofcorespordemce. The first itera is from the FEoinrena Division, dated June 27, 2001, which reads as kr isax "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We are concerned with the storm water discharge which a not shown on the plans that will be created by the proposed project. Since the proposed budding is located in an area where the Citypurchased storm sewer capacity in 1967, Wayne County will make the final determination ofoutfall sue andor detention We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The lett is signed by David Dear, RE, Civil Engineer. The second letRr is town the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated hoe 29, 2001, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in cormection with a request to construct an addition to the office budding on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to tha proposal with the following stipulation: Access around the buildings shaft be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forth jive feet wall b wall and a maximum vertical clearance of 13-12feet." The letter is signed by James E. Cowan. Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Deparhrert, dated July 3, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request ofJune 20, 2001, the above referencedpention has been reviewed The following is noted (1) The parking area has been reviewed as though allnew pavement will be installed Double striping will be required and the accessible space site most be 16 feet wide (8 foot wide space with an S foot wide aisle). (2) All landscaping (sod) areas should be irrigated and all Lawn should be sod not seed (3) Clarification should be made to the Commission's satisfaction as to exactly what material the dumpster enclosure walls will be constructed porn (4) Other accessibility issues within the building will be handled by this Department at plan review. (5) The existing older protective wall's (south 12) cap needs repair. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the conespandence. Mr. McCain: Is the petitioner hem this evemW. Angelo D'Oraao, 33213 Vargo Road, Livonia Mr.McCaan DoyonwarRkrt Ul ahtflebitabo IIyourproposal? Mr. DOraao: I bought this budding and paid a lot of money for it and I figured I could put an addition on it and remodel the whole building because it doesnY look very good. I looked down the road and thought I would match all the new brick Mr. McCain: Are you going to be using this office yourself! Mr. D'Ornao: I Blink I am going to be using itfor myself. Mr. McCain: Are there arty questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: One of our concerns was about the existing driveway. We wanted it shifted and moved. Would you agree to that? Mr. D'Ornao: I was trying to save some money by moving the driveway to the center and that I could pick up a couple more parking spaces. I will move the driveway to the center. Mr. Lalime: Tbankyou. Mr. Shane: We were reviewing the landscape plan with the staff earlier, it was noted that in the easement between the road and the sidewalk, you proposed to use flowering crabs and I think it would be better if you would amend that and go to a street tree such as a maple or plum That type of tree, because of the sight distance you would be dealing with, would be better to have a street tree in that location Mr. D'Ornao: I have to revise the landscape plan because of the driveway so there would be more landscaping around the budding. Mr. Sbane: I assume you will be using street trees in another location so you may wantto take that into consideration 18637 Mr. D'Orazio: O%. Thank you Mr. McCain: Since this is a site plan, members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPme, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved it was #7-101-2001 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the GTy Council that petition 2001-06-08-19 by Angelo DOrnzio requesting approNal of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in correction wiPo a proposal to construct an addition to the office budding located at 15530 Farmington Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated June 5, 2001 prepared by Micbwl L. Priest & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, emelt fir the fact that the existing driveway shall be removed and a new driveway shall be installed so that it lines up wilh the aisleway of the new parking lot; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 dated June 5, 2001 prepared by Michael L. Priest & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that in place of Poe existing driveway, that is to be removed, additional landscaping sba0 be msblled; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in hen ofbydroseedivg 4. That underground spruAders are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shah be installed to Poe satisfaction of the Inspection Departrnent and 8rereaf a permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the existing large tree located on the north property line shall be retained and incorporated into Poe landscaping of the site; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 6/14/01, as revised, prepared by GAV Architectural Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 6/18/01, as revised, prepared by GAV Architectural Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be frill face 4 -inch brick, no exception; 9. That the three walls of the hash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substiNRd, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the 18638 budding and the enclosure gates shall be mammmed and when not in use, closed at all times; 10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permit are applied for. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of ore agenda These items have been discussed at leriA in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require mountains consent from the Cormrussion. ITEM #2 PETITION 2001-03-02-05 Haggerty Road Investments Mr. Piencecchi, Secretary, announced the ne#item an the agenda is Petition 2001-03-02-05 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing budding in cormection with a proposal to operate a full service restaxicat on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was #7-102-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-03-02-05 by Haggerty Road Imestimots requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing budding in connection with a proposal to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted Mr. McCann: Sir, can you 0 us anydiing new since ore last meeting? Arthur Carmichael, Haggerty Road Investments, 7830 Bamsbury, W. Bloomfield, MI 48321. When I was here the last time, we thought we had a prospective purchaser but we haven't had a signed offer. That has changed We have a new owner, that is going to sand confusing in a mum a, and a signed offer to purchase with some contingencies and PO introduce them to you in a mimufa The new purchaser likes the dry"t That was the first set of elevations that I showed you. That is what they would prefer going with. The third fact that has come up is the fact that we have an emu in ore calculations in parking. We are going to have to go to ZBA for approval. We thought it was drawn with a 21 foot drive path. We thought we had a 18639 foot extra It tons am it is a 22 foot drive path, which means we are a foot shy, that means that the m elve parking stalls that in a mw in the ®delle would, with ZBA appmNul, be reduced w 9"10". Each one would lose two inches of the drive paths. IfZBA approved it, it would go to 21'6' as opposed to 22 feet I dont know which they would approve or disapprove so we would have to go to ZBA or lose two parking stalls. So that is new. What is really confusing, the Bone Yard Restaurants, the three that you know of are owned by a family. The fellow I was with here before, is a member of that family. He is not going to be the purchaser. It is going to be a different family member who would also use the Bone Yard name but he operates slightly differently. It is like the third generation now is starting to purchase and develop restaurants. What you see in the Bone Yard Restaurants now is the second generation of ownerships and co- ownerships. If you want to meet him and talk to him about how he operates as opposed to how the other fellow operates, I would be happy to introduce you Gordon Djor4evski, 28078 Hickory Drive, Famrington Hills, Michigan Mr. McCain: Want to hll us about your proposed operation for this location? Mr. Djor4evski: It is pretty much, operation wise, in the way the restaurants are run but it will be slightly different It wdl be the same merry the same setup, look and feel wise but it will be a little bit different I am going to give more of a new look than what we traditionally have because we are more or less family dining and I want to move into a casual dining type atmosphere. But the way A is run, family operated, it is pretty much going to be the same. Mr. McCann: There were some questions presented at the last meeting regarding the limited seating and parking capacity. Do you still do a lot of carry-aII business? Mr. Djor4evski: Yes. Mr. McCann: Then what is you normal seating capacity A you restaurants? Mr. Djor4evski: ILe one I amusually at is abort 120 seats. It works wellfor us because our turnover is really quick We get people in and ort in about 15 to 20 mantes, 30 minutes tops. So the parking shouldnR be too much of a problem Mr. McCann: Wold you be handicapped with 88 seats? Mr. Djordjevski: No. Actually it would probably wok out better because my wife and would be running it I would handle the back and she would handle the front Itis more or less a one person operation so the smaller it is the boa it will be to operate, I feel. Mr. McCann: Are Poere any questions from the Commissiwers? Mr. LaPive: Sr, are you purchasing the property? 18640 Mr. Djonbevski: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Then you are going to do the renovations? Mr. Djor4evski: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Have you had any conversations with owners of the parking lot or the theater where they have all the puking where you could maybe lease some parking from ban? Mr. Djor4evski: No I havent. Mr. Sbane: To the petitioner, has therebeen arty change with regard to trymgto obtain an alternative ingress/egress point from the site to an adjacent property? Mr. Ca n ichael: I think whatym are asking is the AMC theater parking behind us whether we have any negotiations with them at all, nue whatsoever. They turned us down in the past They wont even tally to us. We tried. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Carmichael, I had some conversations with Mr. Jorma today. It is my understanding now ihatthe whole parcel is a condominium Each individual owner of the restaurants owns their own parcel and come together with a condominium Even if you did have a conversation with Mr. Jona, he said that you would have to get approval from all the members of the condo for them to approve you using then exit or using then parking. That is what he informed me today. Mr. Camrichael: The information I had is essentially what you are telling me brt I was under the impression that they had a disproportionate amount of voting. It wasnt that each individual owner had an equal vote but that the AMC theater, whatever they said kind of goes but they respect the decisions of the other people so they are the people that ultimately have the say. So we approached the AMC people. Mr. LaPine: I approached them and asked if there is any way they can work out a deal where you could at least use one of their driveways. One of the cont®tions here is that there should be two driveways, me in and one out of the restru ant and apparently he is saying he is out of the loop and it would be up to the individual owners of the restaurants, or the condo association to decide ifthey want to do A and basically, what I thinly he alluded to was the fact they were in a restru ant bolding that they werent really after any competition. I understand that at one time you and loin were negotiating. He wanted to by the property from you and apparently you couldnt work out a deal. Mr. Camochael: We actually proposed to move into the northwest corner and surrrevder our property whim and get inky the northwest corner but that was rejected by them I wanted to get into the northwest corner to get near that drive near the 18641 northwest comer because I thought it was safer but they rejected that Tbat was Jorma. Mr. LaPine: I was out there today, I was behind the building and I went un, your parking lot The fence that goes all the way around, that would be removed? Mr. Camuchael: Thatwouldbemwedattheend. Ican'tsay. Iassumeitisgoivgtobe removed at the end radmer than the begirming of cov.Mrtiom Mr. LaPine: But evendually it would be removed? Mr. CamuchaeL Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Tbankyou. Mr. Alanskas: I have a few questions for the new owner! What hours would be your greatest business and traffic, in the afternoon or evenmgl Mr. Djonbevski: Probably dinner would probably be the biggest part of our business but looking at the area, lurch would probably do well. Mr. Alanskas: Are you saying after 6:00 pm? Mr. Djor4evski: Probably after 6:00 p.m Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I ask is because I was A J. Alexanders at 5:00 p.m and there was parking there for everybody. When we left at 7:00 pm, it was a diffe nt story. Cars were parked everywhere. I really have a concern aboutyour restaurant and whether you are going to have enough parking wbere you can take care ofvour business. If you go down to 88 seats, it would help a lot, or even less than that You said that it wodd be no problem going to 88 or lower! Mr. Djor4evski: Where we are right now, I am rot really sure but I think we are around 95 seats. If we went down a little bit lower, it wouldn't make that much difference. Mr. Alanskas: If you go 94 or 95 seats, then you don't have enough parking. Mr. Djor4evski: That is what I said, we could go lower. Mr. Alanskas: With88sea1s you would technically have enough parking. Idon'tthinkyou will have but technically you would. Thank you Mr. McCain: In your operation, say about a 90 seat operation, how many cooks would you have during your busiest time? Mr. Djordjevski: Probably two cooks and myself. 18642 Mr. McCain: Two cooks plus yourself, a prep person? Mr. Djonbevski: No, that would be done m the early morning tame. They would be gone. Mr. McCann: Dishwashers? Mr. Djor4evski: Probably one. Mr. McCann: Would you have a hostess? Mr. Djordjevski: Probably one. Mr.McConn: Howmanywaitstaff! Mr. Djordjevski: Probably three or four, depending on the time of day. Mr. McCain: How many bartenders? Mr. Djonbevski: One Mr.McCann: Wmddyomwifebethereaswell? Mr. Djonbevski: Depending on whether I was there. If was there, she would be there. Mr. McCain: So yonwould have 10 maybe l l people. Mr. Djordjevski: More toward 9, probably 10 being the most, but probably around 9 people. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Isthere onydring else you would hike to tell the Planning Cormnission? Mr. Djor4evs1d: I think I am OK. unless you want anything else from me. Mr. McCain: Is tbere anyone in the audience wishing to speak. As I stated earlier, it would take a unommous decisive by the Plar ing Commission. Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by IaPme and approved it was RESOLVED that pursuant to a public hearing having been by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2001, on Petition 2001-03-02-05 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing building in connection with a proposal 4 operate a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road m the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-03- 02-05 be approved subject to the following conditions: 18643 1. That the site plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by JCK & Associates, Inc., with a revision date of March 26, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the 56 parking spaces shown on the site plan will allow fm a mnxnnum of 92 customer seats, based upon two (2) seats per customer puking space and 10 employee spaces; 3. That the landscape plan marked Sheet L l prepared by JCK & Associates, Inc., dazed March 25, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered kr; 4. That additional plant materials shall be provided within the landscape islands located in the northeasterly, southeasterly and southwesterly comers of the site, subject to the approval of the Planning Department 5. That the landscaping shown on the above referenced landscape plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in liar ofbydroseeding; 7. That the dumpstar enclosure shall be constructed of bill face 4 inch brick to match the building in conformance with the detail provided on the landscape plan with walls as least six (6) feet in height and gags, constructed of wood, which shall be maintained and when not in use, closed A all times; 8. That the exterior elevations plan marked Job No. 2500 by Finnicum Brownlie Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on March 27, 2001, showing the use ofdryvit on the upper wall sections of both the existing building and the proposed additions, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that Irick to match the Irick on the proposed addition shall be installed on all for sides of the existng building to at least the height from the ground to the sills of the windows in the proposed addition; 9. Than the brick used in the construction of the building shall be fiill face4 inch brick an exceptions; 10. That all light fixtrres shall be shielded and all light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height 11. That all off-street parking spaces provided in connection with the restaurant shall be double striped; 12. That this approval shall be subject to the granting of variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to a nonconforming building and because the site lacks one of the two required driveways to a public street 13. That the comments relative to the barrier free and accessibility codes in connection wRh the change of use group and the lack of the required 18644 separate employee restroom committed in a letter dated April 23, 2001, from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction. 14. That all signage shall come back before the Plarming Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 15. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permit are applied for; and 16. Thin the teastrility of installing alum Right Only' sign at the entrance/exit be looked by the Traffic Department For the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 4543; 2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in baamrry with the surrounding uses in the area; 3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Mr. McCann: Is there discussion? Mr. Sbane: I have been concerned all along, and I remain concerned, about the fact that there is only one ingress/egress to this site. Not only is it a violation of the Zoning Ordinance but I think it could potentially have dangerous results, pmticularly during heavy traffic horns. The fact that it only has ane entrance and exit on to Haggerty Road, I think it is something I wouldn't want to foster. If they could get an alternate exit to the surrounding site, then I would feel much better about it Since they haven't been able to do that, I will be voting no on this resolution. Mr. Puvecchi: Mr. Chaimmn, it is no secret that this proposed restaurant is not ideally located and as such can never, never, never meet our ordinance requirements of setbacks, ingress, egress etc. Although this is cause for concern, I find this concern pale in relation to the item of the site's safety atmosphere. Recall, this business will be the only frill service facility with, in all probability, an alcohol license within the center without a safe passage to and from its premises. It has no direct access to a light This status forces its patrons to leave or enter from Haggerty Road which is now overburdened with traffic serving as a through street and now accommodating many new, as well as, established businesses adjacent to it along Haggerty Road Not having direct access is a direct prescription to the dangerous adverse conditions. Further, it unworried cars enter the site from Haggerty under the impression it is a bona fide entrance, chaos will rein supreme when Huey attempt to exit via Hue single driveway. Actually the layout of the parking lot shown on Sheet LI is very congested in 18645 itself and prone to cause accidents. If this site is to service a heavily patronized business, such as a restzurmrt, passage to and from it should be from the internal confines of the center. As you know, this may be difficult to achieve, if not impossible. Therefore, lees make a reality check. The site would better serve our community and less hazardous if it was limited to a business that would require light traffic volumes and one which would not be highly competitive with operating hours. Mr. Chairman, this site as presented, lacks sufficient capacity and the intensity of the proposed use is too great, with dangerous implications to culminate this proposal as is. As for meeting the waiver standards, in 19.06, it failed. Let me read the first sentence of 19.06(b). "The location and size ofthe proposed use or uses, the nature and bWmily of the principal use and all accessory uses, the site Layout and its relation to streets giving access to i4 shall be such that traffic to and from the use and uses, and the assembly ofpersons in connection therewith, will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood nor unduly conflict with the normal trajrc ofthe neighborhood" Mr. Charman, ttthis plan is O.K'd and if it fails, maybe we will be a McDonald's. Then we've really got a problem I would like to close with, because it is a restaurant, alcohol will in all likelihood be requested and apparently restaurants coal function without alcohol. It is going to make the siluatinn even worse. You cannot make a left tion any placenn Haggerty Road. It is very dangerous and anybody that tries it, there is going to be real trouble and I am afand someone is going to get hurt nn this thing Iam not armti-restaurnnU. I doral care if they put 40 restaumrts inside the confines of that center but this is too dangerous and I cannot accept it Mr. Alanskas: We have nothing against time Yard or arty restamant but if we could somehow get two driveways, ingress and egress, I might be able to go along with it but with the one driveway, firs[ of all, you have the theater there and you have a lot ofyoming people going to the movies and if you look at the stats you know that they can tend to be kind of careless and with this one driveway, believe me, we could have a lot of problems so, therefore, I will be voting "No" on this, also. ILankyou. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I have to say I agree with some of the things my fellow Commissioners have said but no matter what goes in there, we are going to have a problem with traffic along Haggerty Road ILewisnoquestioninmymiud I doral rare if the gentleman, Mr. Carnuchael, stays there with his own operation, grant you it is not as many as a restaurant is going to generate but the fact still remains, we are going to have that situation there. Ijust doral believe that we are looking at every tine a car goes out of there that there is going to be an accident I take that to across the street to Cookefs. Cooker's has one entrance going into their parking lot It is part of the parking lot of the office brddings therebut it isjust one exitthere. ILey go in and they "the same exit It isn't unique that we doral have situations where we have one driveway. You are tallying about Haggerty Road and I agree with you It is a very highly traveled road but so is Seven Mile Road and I haven't noticed any increases in accidents along there. I would like to see the situation where we would have two exits too and I would like to see something worked out so that they could use some of the partying within the confines of the combined parking for all the remarrmts and theater but I think it is a legitimate request and that is why I support it Aroll call was taken wRh the following result: AYES: IaPine, Koons, McCain NAYS: Alamkas, Piercecchi, Shane ABSENT: Now Mr. McCain: The motion fails due to a lack of a majority. Is there an alteramve motion? On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved it was #7-103-01 RESOLVED that, purman to a Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission nn May 8, 2001, on Petition 2001-03-02-05 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting wanner use approval to remodel and expand an existing building in connection with a proposal to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-03-02-05 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has Mod 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 Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That this general area is currently well served with restaurant type uses as is being proposed and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a need for an additional restru ad; 3. That the proposed use is not compatible with the goal of fostering a high quahty emertairumm district in the area; 4. That the proposed use is not aesthetically compatible with improvements already commutfi d in the emarmarmevt district; 5. That the proposed use will add to the traffic congestion currently being experienced and increased congestion expected in the future along Haggerty Road 6. That the proposed site layout and its relation to the street giving access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular ruining movements in relation to routes of traffic flow and location and access of off-street parking, will be hazardous for the subject property and for the neighboring area in general; and 7. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all of the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. 18647 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 4543, as amended A roll call was talon wiPo the following result AYES: Alauskas, Piemerchi, Shane, MCCarn NAYS: LaPine, Koons ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted The petition has been denied You have Rn days m which m file a written appeal of the decision to the City Conrail ITEM #3 PETITION 2001-04-02-07 Robert Okerstrom Mr. Piereecchi, Secretary, announced, the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-04-02-07 by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of property at 13520 Merriman Road for the outdoor storage of boats, travel hailers and recreational vehicles to be located on property on the east side of Merriman Road between SchoolcraR and Plymouth Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Swtion26. On a motim by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was #7-10401 RESOLVED that, the City Planting Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-04-02-07 by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of property at 13520 Merriman Road for the outdoor storage of boats, travel trailers and recreational vehicles to be located on property on the east side ofMerrmart Road between Schookrafi and Plymouth Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 26 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted Mr. McCann: Is there any new correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no new correspondence but the City has received a new site plan, which all of you should have copies of and I will let the petitioner describe the new information on the play Mr. McCann: Mr. Okerstrom, do you want to explain the new information on Poe plan? Robert Okersta m, 13520 Men m m Livonia, MI 48150. I believe it is self-explanatory. Mr. McCann: Its a little bit better layout Mr. Okerstrom: Just drew it a little nicer. 18648 Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: According to the original information, you were planning on parking 140 vehicles on the site. Mr. Okerstrom: It would fit 140 vehicles, yes. Mr. Shane: According to the staff, that number would probably be more like 132 vehicles. I guess there was a mistake on the calculation but anyway you plan is for 130 to 140 vehicles, comct? Mr. Okerstrom: Something in that area I doubt ifitwould be filled. Mr. Shane: Do you have aproblem with paving that lot within two years? Mr. Okerstrua I think the expense would werwbehn the profit Mr. Shane: I ask that question because I agree with you Mr. Okersitom: I do believe tbat we may develop the rest of the properties from that fence that you see there back to Industrial Road but I am not sure what will happen Mr. Slone The point I was going to make is that the gravel that you have down there now, howthick is that? Mr. Okersturn Itis sixteen inches. Mr. Shane: Do you have positive dmmage? Mr. Oken4om: Yes. We've got five storm sewers in there. Mr. McCain: Are there my more questions? Is there anything else you would like to inform the Board about? Mr. Okeurom: No. Mr. McCann Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pierwcchi and uromm ou dy approved it was #07-108-01 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 8,200 1, on Petition 2001-04-02-07 by Robert Okerstroar requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of property at 13520 Merriman Road for the outdoor storage of boats, travel tinders and recreational vehicles to be located on property on the east side ofMemman Road between Schooluaft and Plymouth Roads in the N.W. 114 of Section 26, 18649 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-04-02-07 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan submitted by Robert Okerstrom Construction Company, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the storage of recreational vehicles/equipmmt units shall be confined to the area identified for this purpose on the above referenced site plam, which is limber defined as the east 600 feet of the west 1,288 feet of the subject property; 3) That the recreational vehicle/equipment storage area shall be hard surfaced with concrete or a plant -mixed biummu us anterial of a type approved by the Engineering Division within two (2) years of the date of approval of this petition by the City Council; 4) That the recreational vehicle/equipmem umts shall be parked along the north and along the south boundaries of the storage area with the center area left open for a tum around, as described on the site plan, allowing for a total capacity of approximately 132 recreational equipment units; 5) That the entire area utilized for recreational vehicle/equipment storage shall be enclosed by a from of a type approved by the hapection Department which shall be at least six (6) feet in height with only such openings as may be necessary for ingress and egress; 6) That the use of barbed wire on the fence enclosing the subject property shall be prohibited and all existing ba#d wre shall be removed; 7) That the disabled,junked, wrecked and/or unlicensed vehicles and scup material noted in the revised letter dated April 27, 2001 from the Inspection Department shall be removed from the subject property; and 8) Ilan the vehicles and equipment stored or parked within the designated outdoor storage area shall be limited to Recreational Equipment as defined in Section 2.10(20) of the Zoning Ordinance. For the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 4543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrwmding uses in the area 18650 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above bearing was given m accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCaw: Is diere any discussion? Mrs. Koons: I also feel the same as Mr. Shane about the gravel. He feels it is sufficient I would go a bit further and say that it is preferred. We hear a lot about water mnoff and problems with drainage. I think this is a place where there isn't considerable in and ad in an hour-bphour basis during the day and that this may serve your purpose as well as serving a better environmental purpose. Mr. LaPme: I have no objection kr Number 3 but that is part of the ordinance. Who has kr waive that? Does that go kr Zoning Board of Appeals for him kr not have kr put Poet in. in two yeas? Mr. Tmnnina: That is correct The Planning Commission and City Council can waive that requirement for a period of two years. As I understand it, he would then be requned to emend the waiver from the Zoning Board Mr. Alanskas: In looking at your revised site plan, I have no problem with what you want to do but that revised site plan was very, very difficult to understand what you were trying kr say on the paper with all of the crows pointing this way and that way. I would hope, possibly, if this goes forward to the Council, that you could revise dig site plan so that the City Council could read it I am sure you part in a lot of hens trying kr figure what you ward to do brt it is just not sufficierd. Mr. Okershom: Ididn1drawitlad1willlook urra it CanIaskyouaquestion? Mr. McCaw: One question. Mr. Okershom: What is the zoning on industrial property aboutfenciW. Mr. McCaw: We are not going kr go inky that Actually we have already closed the meeting section. You can check with the staffkrmomov on that Mr. McCain, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-05-02-10 Value World Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, armounced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-05-02-10 by Value World, Inc. requesting waiver use approval kr operate a second hand store on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue m the N.E. 1/4 of Section 23. On a motion by Mr. Pien ecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was 18651 #7-106-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-05-02-10 by Value World, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store on property located w the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue in the NE. 1/4 of Section 23 be removed from the table. Mr. McCaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted Mr. Alauskas: In regards In this petitioq I know on a pending item you need an unanimous approval and I, myself, cannot see that I know there are a lot of people here and I know that we have 186 signatures in opposition to this petition, so we pretty much knowhow theyfel. Sol wouldnot hkewhave audience participation tonight I don't think it is necessary. Mr. McCaw: We've had several meetings on this. We've had a Planning Commission meeting and two study meetings and this is actually our fourth meeting on this particular subject Mr. Taormina, do you have some correspondence? Mr. Taormina: We have received a number of items of correspondence. I believe we provided each of the Commissioners with copies of the letters that have been received The majority of which the persons are indicating thein objection to the petition by Value World. In addition to that, as Mr. Alanskas indicated, a petition was submitted with 186 sigwtures. Again, that petition indicates thein objection to the petition. Finally, we do have an item of correspondence dated July 9, 2001, and ibis is from a representative of the owner of the renter, ANK B mime ises, Inc. and each of you should also have a copy of that letter. Mr. McCaw: Yes. We have that as well as the residents. For the audience, the signatures on the petition as well as all of the letters will be made official part of the file In be transferred on to the Livonia City Council. We aregonigto sbrtwith the petitioner this evening. Please state any new information that you have for us. James Harrington, 24101 Novi Road, Novi, Michigan. I am the corporate attorney. I would defer arty comment I have until the conclusion of whatever is presented I would indicate by way of an update that a public meeting was scheduled and neighbors and the like were given the opportunity to participate. I was not present Mr. George Schaffer, a corporate representative from Cleveland, Ohio, came in and if the chain is interested, I would have Mr. Schaffer not give you the presentation he made that evening but simply a short report In you in terms of attendance and the interest that was expressed at that meeting, if you are interested to heat! George Schaffer: Basically what happened at the meeting, we had approximately eight people that showed up. Mr. Piercecchi was there. Ibis was done through a dnectmail. We had requested a list from the Planning Commission of people who should be notified. In addition, with the letter, which went out an the 21a of June, there also were notices published. That was the best we could do. We did not have everyone's address but we did post it here and we did, ofcomse, mail it to the people that we were directed to mail to. 18652 Mr. McCann: Those werethe people that attended the original hearing, Ibelieve. Mr. Schaffer c That is correct Mr. McCain: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPtne: I would like to ask Mr. Kormneier a questim. Matt Kommeier, AN& P. O. Box 3013, Farmington Hills, Nit 48333. Mr. Lupine: On our fust meeting we had, and I not reading from the cranks, you stated that, "I went to all the stores for Value World when we began to revisit this and I changed my mind", which means you looked at the stores and you were happy with them Mr. Konnneier: I did not look at all of the stores. I did not go to Arm Arbor and I did not go to the one on Schaffer and Seven Mile. Mr. Lupine: And you said, "We think it will be a good tenarR for the renter. The other tenants feel the same way." I went out there and I surveyed everytenant in that center except the drugstore, the hardware store, the restaurant and the pi=a place, which was closed. Not one of those reasons in there knew that Value World was moving into that center. Ym told us that they knew all about it Mr. Kornrneier I gave notice. Sometimes the people that work there and the owners may be differentparties. I did talk w the people at CVS, Nvmch there are several people there. The proprietor at the Outback was recently replaced. Did you speak with the owner of the Hallmark? Mr. LaPine: Yes, I did The owner was not there. I spoke to the manager and I conveyed to him what I was there for and what were thein concerns. He was supposed to call me back He never called me back. Mr. Koanmeier Joyce Naimy is the owner. Mr. LaPine: I talked to the owners of the bridal saloon. I talked to the owner of the electronics store. As amatler of fact, most of the people that I talked to didn't know that CVS was moving not of there. Mr. Kormneier The drugstore has not given us notice that they are leaving I would be to tell that to the owners when I don't have notice of that All know is what you know which is that they got site plan approval for 29500 Five Mile Road. They currently have four years left on then lease. Mr. LaPne: The only concern I have is that I left here believing that most of the people in that center werein favor ofthemmovng im Let me say, it was a split decision. I would say that 50% of the people were for it and 50% of the people were against it Some people thought anything in there would help trade 18653 coming into the curter and other people didn'tthink that was good They would rather wait for a most classier type tenant Mr. Kormneier: The one temad I didn't speak to was thejewelry storeowner. Mr. Lapin: He was opposed to it Mr. Kommeier: In some cases, I spoke to the owner: but they are not necessarily the people that work here. There are some people that! handle through the leasing that I spoke m that may not have beer at the store so there may have beer some differences of opinion within the operation. Mr. Lapin: Like I say, it was a 50/50 split Thank you Mr. McCann: Mr. Kor®eier, you stated m your letter that you would like additional time to consider the value of Value World to the center and to reducing the size of the space. Ib you want to expand on that before you leave the podium? Mr. Kornmeier We had some dismssion and there has beer some thought about Value World taking the entire 30,000 sq. ft and at the previous meeting the question was asked if there was a possibility that they would not take all of that space. I tend In agree that might be a good compromise and we would certainly make that offer to Value World, of them taking a portion of the space and nmy correspondence to you, I suggested about two-thirds (2/3) of it I do have some other naterested tenants, or on particular infested temout for the end cap which would pert the visibility on Five Mile Road to somebody else. Also, if people are concemed about the traffic in the center, we would just reduce the amount of square footage occupied by Value World. I also thought consideration, or the additional time to consider, I was referring to the informational meeting. Apparently a lot of the residents were not notified and therefore didn't come. Whether or not it would change their mind, it certainly would be beneficial for them to learn a little bit more about Value World. I attended the meeting and there was virtually no one there. There were two people there because they liked Value World and they thought it would be a good addition to the center. So the time factor was to inform those people on this petition that had not had a chance to hear the Value World story. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? Is there anything else from the petitioner! Mr. Schaffer: I don't befieve so at this time. Basically, I am concerned about vkA is the process from here? Mr. McCann: It would depend on whether or not the petition is approved car denied. If it is approved, d will automatically go to City Council. If it is demed, you will have ten days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council and ifit is tabled, it will be heard again at a later date. 18654 Mr. Schaffer: At which time we would state what we believe we could do as far as our facility comingintothisarea. Wouldthatbethefi efor wmakeouformal presentation? Mr. McCain: It was made at the public hearing. Mr. Schaffer: O.K. Mr. McCann: You will have an opporhunity, it if goes on to City Council or ifit is appealed to the City Council, to present your plan to the Council as well as at that time, the audience would again have the opportunity to present thein views m the City Council. So, A will all be heard again before the City Council. Mr. Schaffer: Ibank you verymuch Mr. McCann: That concludes that portion. Ibere has already been an objection to audience participation tonight I, as Chairman, cannot open it up for discussion. However, I do see a lot of people that came out tonight I assume it is the same group that provided the letters and the petition against the use oftbis. What I will allow everybody to do is whoever in the audience wants to raise the¢ hand to give us a general indication if you are against it please raise your hand Those in favor of it raise you hand O.K. (The werwbehnmg majority of handsmisedwereageinstthepetition.) Ibatgivesusanideaofwhereyou stand A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskes, seconded by Mrs. Koros and approved it was #7-107-01 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 12, 2001, on Petition 2001-05-0b 10 by Value World, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Nhddlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 23, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-05-02-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner bas failed m affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requnremeots as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. Ibat the petitioner has not adequately established that there is a need for the proposed use in this area of the City; 3. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses an the area; and 4. Ibat the nature of the proposed use would not enhance the image and character of the commercial development in this area 18655 FFRTHER RESOLVED fiat, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to support the motion. My major concern deals with this operation and its affects over the long had. Would it be an asset to the center or would it negatively impact the property values of the surrounding homes as most adjacent neighbors predict and I personally agree with them When I visited their flagship, the Westland store, I was temporarily relieved at the possibility of them locating in Livonia However, visits and photos of sister stores proved otherwise. Mr. Chairman, this facility would not be an enhancemerd to our business client Mr. McCann: Is there arty other discussion Hearing none, I do have one comment I am not going to vote in favor or the denying resolution as there was a request to meet with all of parties. I think that could All be accomplished and the possibility of you doing a smaller type resale shop, which we have allowed in other areas. Would the secretary please call the roll? AYES: Almskas, Shane, LaPive, Room, Piercecchi NAYS: McCann ABSENT: Now Mr. McCam, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted Your petition has been denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the Livonia City Council. Thank you. ITEM#5 PETITION 2001 -03 -GB -02 PulfceOflice Buildings Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, am unced the next itan on the agenda is petition 2001 -03 -GB -02 police Office Buildings requesting approval to substihDe a greenbelt for the protective wall as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 32410 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Five Mile and Hubbard Roads. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a residential zmed property. The applicant is requesting that the existing landscaped greenbelts along the west property line and part of the south property line be accepted as an appropriate substitutim. The Pulice office complex is made up of two separate officebuildings. One building faces Five Mile Road and is located close to the intersection of Five Mile Road and Hubbard Road The other building sets back on Hubbard Road and is separated from the fast building by a parkmg lot This office building faces Hubbard Road The best way w describe the layout oftbis property is to say itis shaped like a backwards L. It fronts the entire length of Five Mile Road between 18656 Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue and extends north up Hubbard Road about 300& The applicant is requesting that the existing greenbelts thatmn along the back of the property be considered instead of the protective wail. The Site Plan shows that the existing gmenbe0 that runs along the south property line, parallel In Five Mile Road, is 15 If wide. This area is planted with a row of mature evergreen trees. The greenbelt that runs up along the westproperty line is approximately 25 If wide and is planted with a mixture of evergreens and deciduous trees. Because the greenbelt along the north property line that is next to the office building that fronts off Hubbard Road is not at least 10 If in width, it cannot be considered as an appropriate substitution for a wall. In a lett that accompanied the Site Plan. the applicant explains that they believe "the existing greenbelts provide an adequate buffer between the office buddmgs and the adjacent residences'. The letter also states that"the construction of the protective wall would probably necessitate the removal ojbees__". Mr. McCain: Mr. Taormina, is there anything additional? Mr. Taormina: No, thereis it Mr. McCain: Is the petitioner here this evening? Rbebt Hartley, 417 Eureka Road, Wyandotte, Michigan 48192. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to 0 the Planning Commission this e enng' Mr. Hartley: No. There is nothing additional. I guess the property is going fo be looked at again. Mr. McCann: We have looked at it again, now that spring has come and gone. Is there anybody on the Commission that has any questions? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak m this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piemecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was #7-108-2001 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001 -03 -GB -02 Pulite Office Buildings requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 32110 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelts along the west property line and part of the south property line, as shown an the plan received by the Planning Commission m March 13, 2001, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelts resulting in a dimimIIim of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective 18657 barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18A5. Mr. McCain: Is there any discussion? Mr. Tam mna: Just a point of clarification I believe it was in the resolution thatyou indicated that porfions of the west and south property lines. It should be the north property lines. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted It wdl go on to City Conned with an approving resolution. .ITEM #6 Approval of Minutes 8261h Regular meeting Mr. Piemecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Mumps; of the 826th Regular Meeting held on May 22, 2001. On a motion by Mr. Sbane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was #7-109-2001 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 826th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2001, are hereby approved A roll call vote was tal® with the folloHwg result AYES: Piencerebi, Koons, Shane, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Now ABSENT: Now ABSTAIN: LaPma Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 827me Regular Meeting held on Judy 10, 2001, was adjourned at 8:36 P.M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piemecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman /rw 18658