Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994 08-30 13605 MINUTES OF THE 689th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 30, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 689th Regular Meeting & 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 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. °�.,. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-6-1-15 by Westland Industrial Park and Modern Builders Supply, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Mayfield Avenue, north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 frum P to M-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Gil Ceisetz, 30100 Telegraph, Bingham Farms: I would like to give you a little history on this piece of property. Westland Industrial Park has owned this property for a number of years. We also own the piece of property on the southeast corner, and in 1979 leased it out to General Motors as a training center. Part of their requirements were that they needed additional parking. We therefore had the other piece of land, which we then proceeded to asphalt and stripe and use for additional parking for the training center. General Motors moved out of the 13606 building in 1991 and therfore we no longer had any use for the additional parking. We are now here requesting the zoning back to the M-1. \.. Mr. Engebretson: So it was M-1 before? Mr. Ceisetz: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Ceisetz, could you give us an idea of what you will be doing with that property. Mr. Ceisetz: Right now we are talking to Modern Builders Supply who owns the building adjacent on Plymouth Road who has a need for added use for that particular parcel. Mr. Morrow: What will they be storing there? Mr. Ceisetz: They are here right now and can answer your questions. Wolfgang Drescher: I am the corporate counsel for Modern Builders Supply, Inc. As Mr. Ceisetz points out, we have a facility on Plymouth Road. It is directly adjacent to the C-2 furthest to the left on the slide. About 2 1/2 years ago my client purchased what was then an old dilapidated building and we have since then renovated it and dressed it up. It has become a showplace for our corporation. Since then we have also added on to that building, expanded the facility and low and behold the business is bumping around and going well and we are at a point where we need more room to expand the business operations. We think that with this parcel we can expand the operation and possibly bring four to five new jobs into the area. That is our concept. I think we have been a good neighbor, and we would request approval for the zoning change. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: What I am trying to get an idea of is, do you intend to put buildings on it? Do you plan on using it as a yard? Give me an idea of what your plans are. Mr. Drescher: Right now there are no plans for a building. The future may hold a building. We don't know at this point. The immediate usage would be outside storage for building products, much like the ones we store at the present facility today. Mr. Morrow: It would be nothing of the high-rise nature like shovels or cranes, etc.? Mr. Drescher: No sir. We do not have that kind of equipment. We do not have any type of heavy cranes or anything like that. All of our supplies are windows. You may be familiar with some of our vinyl replacement windows, wood windows. We sell roofing shingles, vinyl siding, steel entry door systems. These are 13607 all small, compact type of building units. We do not have heavy equipment. Mr. Morrow: It will be low profile? v.. Mr. Drescher: Correct. Mr. McCann: I have a question for the staff. The proposed uses that they have given us tonight, couldn't they be under a C-2 waiver use? Mr. Nagy: It could if they wanted to introduce C-2 zoning and also C-2 does not allow storage in the front yard. Mr. McCann: It looks like to me, from the map, that we would end up almost with a more contiguous line in the future plans for that area for Plymouth Road which would be more in line with the C-2 use under a waiver use, wouldn't it? Mr. Nagy: Perhaps. The other alternative is that in our manufacturing zoning classification we do allow building component supplies, lumber stores, hardware stores, etc. to locate within the M-1 zoning classification. Erb Lumber on Farmington Road at Capitol is a good example and Salem Lumber on Plymouth Road. Our zoning early on recognized that our industrial area might be attractive to those kinds of uses so we allow them by right within the M-1 zoning as opposed to waiver use in the C-2. With the other alternative we wouldn't be opening up the M-1 to a potential broad range of commercial uses that would `or otherwise likely occur within a C-2 in the event that this operation was not successful or wanted to vacate to move out to other bigger quarters some day. Mr. McCann: What concerns me more is the introduction of some other type of M-1 into pretty much what the Future Land Use Plan calls for commercial along that section. By doing it as a waiver use, we comply with the Future Land Use Plan and we don't open it up to some of the other uses that would be introduced possibly in M-1. Mr. Drescher: The only reason we applied for the M-1, obviously it does permit outside storage, which is what we would be using it for in the immediate future, and the C-2, if I am not mistaken, does not permit that. Mr. Nagy: It would not permit the outside storage of materials in the full area only in back of the building in the C-2 without waiver use. Mr. McCann: You couldn't get a waiver use for outdoor storage only in the back of the building? Mr. Nagy: That is right. 13608 Mr. McCann: This is too broad of an area for the outside storage? Mr. Nagy: This is designed to accommodate to their kind of outside storage. The C-2 applications would probably be more '`• restrictive of the total utilization of that parcel for storage purposes. Mr. McCann: I just don't want to spot zone, but it is more appropriate for the type of use. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, do you own the property or do you lease the property? Mr. Drescher: We own the property. Mr. Nagy, I have one question. My recollection, if it serves me correct, the front part of our parcel is zoned C-2. I believe the back part is zoned M-1. Is it now? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. Drescher: So actually what we are asking for here, from this line forward we have a C-2 classification. From that line back to the property line is indeed M-1. The parcel we own immediately to here, that also is M-1. It would not be spot zoning. It would flow. The line all the way across to Mayfield would all be contiguous and be zoned M-1. Mrs. Blomberg: I was wondering if this was in the Plymouth Road Beautification Committee, would this fit in with outside storage being visible? *411111. Mr. Nagy: No more visible than what already occurs on the site that they presently have and they have done a good job in the containment of that use and how they store and handle it. From that standpoint I don't think it would be detrimental at all. It would provide for utilization of what is otherwise a relatively small parcel of ground. The size of that area to be zoned for industrial purposes or any other purpose is quite limited. I think to incorporate it into a larger parcel so it would be used in a more comprehensive way would be better than to have a small single purpose use. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #8-148-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 30, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-1-15 by Westland Industrial Park and Modern Builders Supply, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Mayfield Avenue, north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of 13609 Section 27 from P to M-1, the City Planning Commission dec hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of an adjacent M-1 zoning district in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will permit the expansion of an existing business in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, T. Pine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. EngPhretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition Nor 94-7-1-16 by Charles Tangora for MetroVision of Livonia, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to O.S. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please give us your reasons for this proposal. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent the petitioner. This piece of property became available about three or four months ago due to a death in the family and MetroVision was approached, and since they lost out on the piece of property where there is a law office, they are eager to acquire this piece of property for future expansion. They have a purchase agreement contingent upon the rezoning. If it is passed, MetroVision will use it and will begin plans for expansion. Mr. Engebretson: Could you give us some idea Mr. Tangora of what that expansion would consist of and what portions of the property it would occupy? 13610 Mr. Tangora: It would probably cut across, obviously, Farmington Road is the most visible. I am not sure that they know what type of building because it has just come too soon to do any corporate planning, which is done outside of Atlanta, Georgia. They `toy would commission an architect, like they did when they built the original building, to look over the site and decide on the type of expansion. As far as the time, I just can't give it to you but they do have some need for expansion. It would probably be along Farmington Road, which would be surrounded by additional parking area. Mr. TaPine: John, at the present time is there a wall that separates MetroVision from the senior citizen parcel? I have a problem here because it intrudes so deeply into the Silver Village parcel. Mr. Nagy: There is no wall. Mr. TaPine: Would it require one? Mr. Nagy: If they were to actually apply for a building permit to make use of the property, they would have to put up a wall or they could substitute a greenbelt for the wall but that would be subject to your approval. Mr. TaPine: Have the senior citizens had any objections to this or any comments? Mr. Nagy: I have not heard any but that is the purpose of this hearing. 'tor Mr. Alanskas: John, how close are those two houses on the south? How many feet from the houses to the new proposed lot line? Mr. Nagy: I would be guessing close to 15 to 20 feet. Mr. Morrow: Just by eye, it looks like you are almost doubling the size of the property. Could you envision where in the relatively near future that you would come through with a proposal that would require the total development of that site to accommodate the expansion plans? I think you indicated they were trying to pick up the attorney's office, which is probably about a third of the size which you would be coming by now. What I am trying to do is go along with what Mr. TaPine said, the scale. I don't say you have to develop the plan but I certainly don't know what they have in mind, but it looks like to use the total site would be a relatively large expansion. Mr. Tangora: I agree with you. It does go back and turn into that Silver Village. Myself I don't really see that they would develop the west side of the property. We have Mr. Bjorklund here, who is the General Manager of MetroVision of Livonia. He may have more insight into what their future plans are. 13611 Mr. Engebretson: Please come forward Mr. Bjorklund and share with us what you plan to do with this property. Mr. Bjorklund: I think Mr. Tangora pretty well described the fact that we 'taw have not started the process or decided exactly how we would like to develop this property. To Mr. Morrow's question, as you probably know we are in a very rapidly changing business and a lot of the possible changes in our business would have a lot of impact on the development of this land and exactly what we would need to do with it. The nearest example is that it is entirely feasible that within the next few years we will be in the telephone business along with the cable business while the telephone company will probably be in our business if that happens. Probably a good deal of this land would be needed to put up an extension that would be able to handle that additional business. If it doesn't happen, we wouldn't need to use as much land. I wish I could give you a firmer answer. Mr. Morrow: I can appreciate where you are coming from. I am just trying to get any information that I can at this time. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, it is my strong opinion that if we approve this petition, we would be approving a worse case scenario regarding spot zoning. This action, in my opinion, would also disregard the property rights of the remaining R-2 home sites that are there along Farmington Road. I am sympathetic to MetroVision's parking needs, but under the circumstances I would recommend that MetroVision relieve its parking problem by leasing available space in the area. When the time comes I `err would like to make a notion to table this on the basis of initiating a comprehensive study in accordance with the Master Land Use Plan to have one petition for the entire area rather than piecemeal. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bjorklund, at the present time, as I understand, you have no plans to expand. It might be six months, two years, etc. Mr. Bjorklund: That is correct. Mr. TaPine: If you are successful in getting this land rezoned, what are your plans for the land right now? Will you just leave it vacant as it is now? Mr. Bjorklund: Basically, until we decide what we are going to do. Mr. LaPine: With the home that is now occupied, will they be allowed to stay there until such time as you need the land? Mr. Bjorklund: The house is vacant now. Mr. TaPine: If you are successful in the rezoning, would that house be demolished or would it stay empty? 13612 Mr. Bjorklund: I am not really sure how that works into the zoning. I would imagine for a short term, if the zoning would allow it, we might lease it out. Sm. Mr. TaPine: For now, if you are successful in the rezoning, there would be no use of the land at this time? Mr. Bjorklund: Right. Mr. LaPine: I guess what I am trying to say is you are not going to be making a parking lot there to park your trucks and things of that nature? Mr. Bjorklund: No sir. Mr. Tapine: I don't want to see that happen. My personal opinion is I would like to see the senior citizen center squared off. Maybe the City can work out a deal where they can buy that parcel because once you start buying that, there is just going to be a domino effect. Eventually all those lots all the way on that side will be sold off and there will be office buildings there. I would like to see that senior citizens parcel squared off somehow. I don't know if it is possible. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bjorklund I understand this opportunity presented itself to you as a result of the death that Mr. Tangora referred to. I understand why you would proceed the way you have, but would it be your opinion that if we were to take some time to look Slow of• the City's potential interest in acquiring the rear portion of that property, would the acquisition still be attractive to you where you would have about a 50% growth capacity as compared to approximately doubling your land area? If you were to use the full land area, the double capacity, obviously you are going to be intruding pretty closely into some people's quality of life. Mr. Bjorklund: Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, we don't know what our total land use need is going to be, and clearly if we don't need to use the entire 577 feet, a logic alternative for some of this space would be to talk to the City about the land. We would be glad, at that point, to have those discussions. With regard to the timing, maybe Mr. Tangora can answer this better from a legal angle, but the offer we made to purchase did have a time deadline on a decision that was contingent upon the zoning. There would be a consideration there on our point of view and the seller's point of view in terms of the timing. Mr. Engebretson: Who established the deadline? Mr. Bjorklund: The sellers. 13613 Mr. Tangora: I am sorry I don't have a copy of the purchase agreement with me tonight. Typically we put a six-month period to rezone. Usually it takes about four months but sometimes you get tied `r.• up in committees and things of that sort so six months is reasonable and typical and that is the type of time life we probably have. We have several months into the period right now so we probably have another four months to go. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a motion to table until we have answers to some of the questions people have relative to Silver Village and how that property is going to be used. I would like to move to table on the basis of initiating a comprehensive study in accordance with the Master Land Use Plan to have one petition for the entire area rather than piecemeal zoning. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-7-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 30, 1994 on Petition 94-7-1-16 by Charles Tangora for MetroVision of Livonia, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to O.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-7-1-16. Nifty Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #8-149-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 30, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-7-1-16 by Charles Tangora for MetroVision of Livonia, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to O.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-7-1-16 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject land for office use. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. 13614 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, TaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: Piercecchi ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-7-2-25 by Clippers Lawn Maintenance requesting to amend the conditions of a previous waiver use approval so as to allow for the outdoor storage of additional landscape material and equipment in conjunction with an existing landscaping maintenance business located on the southwest corner of Hugh Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this ,4011. proposal. We also have a letter in our file from Richard & Sharon Wagner stating they are opposed to the request for outdoor storage and equipment. They state it has been their experience with not only the previous owner of this property, but others in the area, that given conditions and waivers they are always in violation. The area is unable to be policed by City inspectors on a regular basis and soon the property becomes an eye-sore. It then becomes a constant battle between neighborhood residents, the City and the owner of the property. They feel all the businesses in the areas should follow strict guidelines. They want their area cleaned up and don't feel this is the way to do it. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come up and tell us your reasons for this proposal. Ed McIntosh, 15473 Parklane, Plymouth: What we are asking for is permission for outside storage of bulk materials. Our plan includes a structure which comprises between $15,000 and $20,000 to store this material. It definitely will not be an eyesore. We have made vast improvements on the property since we obtained it. We are more than willing to work with our surrounding neighbors to do whatever it takes to keep everybody happy. We 13615 have invested a lot of money in this property and we would like to see the value go up also. We do not want to decrease the value of our property or anyone else's. `r.► Mr. Engebretson: What has changed from the time the original waiver use was granted in 1988 to the present time where this expansion has become necessary? Mr. McIntosh: I believe with his waiver he asked for outside storage for vehicles. He did not ask for any material storage, and he did try to store outdoor materials without a waiver. Mr. Engebretson: Who are you referring to? Mr. McIntosh: I believe Angelo's Supply. Mr. Morrow: You did indicate that you were going to build a structure on this property? Mr. McIntosh: Yes sir. Mr. Morrow: And you will still have outdoor storage? Mr. McIntosh: The outside storage would be materials used in landscaping. It would be top soil, decorated stone, mulch, that type of material. The structure would be a concrete structure with 42 inch footing, 12 inch walls, 8 inch flooring. The height of the structure would be six feet, the same height as the surrounding fence. Mr. Morrow: So it would not be a building, it would be a structure which would contain various building materials? Mr. McIntosh: Yes. Mr. LaPine: John, I would like to get this straight in my mind. This case originally came to us and we denied it. Is that right? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. raPine: They went to the Council and they approved it and the conditions set forth were set by the Council. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. LaPine: I am wondering how can we modify what the Council set as a standard. They set the standards not us. We denied it. He appealed it to Council and the Council approved it and said these are the only conditions which we will allow. If that is to be modified, I would think it would have to be modified by the Council bec.almzeP we denied it. `rr• 13616 Mr. Nagy: This is a new petition. Your petitioner is a new property owner not the original petitioner. He paid a filing fee and he is petitioning pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Your role Nowas a Commission is one of recommendation to the City Council, and the Council will again make the final determination as to whether they want the existing conditions to remain as they were with the previous owner or whether they are persuaded by the arguments advanced by this petitioner that they should be modified and expanded on or altered. This petition is properly before you. You are again being asked to evaluate the facts of this proposal on that property and render your recommendation to the Council. Mr. LaPine: I guess my position would be if we denied the petition before we should continue to deny it. We all feel the same way. Let him go to Council and if Council wants to modify it, let them go ahead and allow it. I don't think we should change our position. Mr. Alanskas: You said you wanted to store four pickup trucks, one front end loader, four trailers. Haw long would these trailers be? What type of trailers are they? Mr. McIntosh: These are landscaping trailers about 16 to 20 feet. Mr. Alanskas: You want six snow plow blades. The building would be how many square feet? `. Mr. McIntosh: 1,000 square feet. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add sir? Mr. McIntosh: You do have an existing situation such as mine existing on Seven Mile Road in the same area. It is directly behind me on Seven Mile Road, which would be Bushel Mart. It is the same residential/commercial type mixture. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-7-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. TaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-150-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 30, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-7-2-25 by Clippers Lawn Maintenance requesting to amend the conditions of a previous waiver use approval so as to allow for the outdoor storage of additional landscape material and equipment in conjunction with an existing landscaping maintenance business located on the southwest corner of Hugh Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-7-2-25 be denied for the following reasons: 13617 1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 14.1. #543. 2) That the proposed use would be detrimental to the surrounding area because it would add more outdoor storage of equipment and material to an area already well served with such facilities. 3) That there are residential properties in the immediate proximity of this subject property that will be adversely affected by additional outdoor storage of contractors equipment and material. 4) That the proposed additional outdoor storage of contractors equipment and material is contrary to the efforts of the Eight Mile Road Task Force to create a more viable and aesthetically pleasing corridor all along Eight Mile Road. 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. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-2-26 by Norm LePage/Liberty One Corp. , d/b/a Fast Side Mario's, requesting waiver use approval to expand the seating capacity for a full service restaurant to be located in an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Avenue and Merriman Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Tastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating Tenant "A" requires 116 parking spaces, based on the formula for 1 parking space per 2 seating spaces (201 seats) in addition to 1 space per employee based on 16 employccs. Tenant "B" requires 11 parking spaces based on 1 space for every 500 sq. ft. of floor space. Based on the above calculations and the existing 128 parking spaces, this department would have no objection to the above subject petition. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. 13618 Mark Stolaruk: I am here on behalf of Liberty One/East Side Mario's. We are looking forward to being in the community. Very basically, you heard all the different departments approving this. The previous restaurant also had a 200 seat capacity at this location, and all we are asking is to allow what was in existence prior to our taking over the building. We have met all of the criteria of the different departments. If I can answer any questions. Mr. Alanskas: John, the previous use was for 200 seats? I was under the impression it was 154. Mr. Nagy: The actual permit was issued on the basis of the 154 seats. The official waiver approved only 154 seats. Mr. Stolaruk: There was a certificate on site that showed 200 that I personally saw. Mr. Alanskas: You also have a restaurant on the east side. Is that correct? Mr. Stolaruk: In Rochester Hills. Mr. Alanskas: How many seats do they have? Mr. Stolaruk: 222. Mr. Alanskas? The problem I have is when it was Sabatini's they had 154 seats and they could not make a go of the business. Then it 'Vowwas Eddie's Place and they had 154 seats and they could not make a go of the business. Then it became American Grill and they did extensive repairs inside and they could not make a go of it. Why do you need 200 seats? Mr. Stolaruk: That gives us the flexibility to make it profitable. TO be very candid with you, locations of smaller sizes had a little bit more profitability standpoint as far as the numbers they have to turn to. Mr. Alanskas: What do you actually sell there? Do you sell pizza or is it full course dinners? Mr. Stolaruk: It is an American/Italian style facility. It has a full service menu. It has pizza as well as chicken and ribs. Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Stolaruk: Ray is in charge of operations. I will let him answer that. Ray Lance: I am Director of Operations for Fast Side Mario's. The hours of operation are open every day at 11:00 a.m. and we will be closing at 1:00 a.m. every day except Sunday and that will be 11:00 p.m. 13619 Mr. Alanskas: So you are open seven days a week? Mr. Lance Correct. Mr. raPine: Maybe you can answer this and maybe you can't. There is an antique shop in conjunction with this. Correct? Mr. Lance Correct. Mr. TaPine: Do you have anything to do with that antique shop? Mr. Stolaruk: Not directly. We have approached the antique shop and have discussed it with them and they are very comfortable with the arrangement. Mr. LaPine: What are their hours of operation? Mr. Lance: Somewhat different than ours. They open at twelve o'clock every day and close at 5:00 p.m. Mr. LaPine: So they are open from 12:00 to 5:00. Your dinner hour would be from 4:00 on? Mr. Lance: Usually dinner hour starts a little later. You get a few people between 4:00 and 5:00 but the majority of people go out to dine somewhere between 5:30 and 6:30. Mr. LaPine: So in reality you can use the whole parking lot for your operation from that time on? Mr. Lance: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: So there isn't a possibility of any parking problems for the 201 seats. Your lunch hour, there could be some problems, but basically most people go to dinner in the evening and on the weekends so when the antique shop is closed you have access to all 128 spaces. Mr. Lance: That is correct. Seventy percent of our hIsiness is at dinner. Mr. LaPine: Do you have much carry-out for pizza, etc.? Mr. Lance: Carry-out is an avenue that we may at some time want to pursue but we mainly focus on taking care of the customers in the restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, Mr. Morrow was wondering if you had any boards showing the layout of the restaurant internally. Do you have any of those boards with you? Mr. Lance: Yes we do. (He presented the plans) 13620 Mr. Morrow: Basically what I wanted to know is, I have seen a lot of scaffolding around the building and I want to know if you have changed any entrances and how you are going to put your 200 seats in there, and just any type of improvements that you are making along with this waiver request. Mr. Lance: The change that we made on the entrance, originally it was in the center of the building and we moved it to the corner. When we do arrange our tables, the setup inside is all pretty much open. The tables are easily accessible and we keep the seating pretty much around the circle. Also, we have one room that we use for banquets or private parties back in the corner that would seat, I believe, 22. Mr. Morrow: In order to get the 200 seats there is an open area that would allow you to add these seats as opposed to having more space? Mr. Stolaruk: That is correct. There is considerable open area. The concept on the outside is we are trying to give a look of being in New York. We have schemes on the outside and the inside that brings that across. That is why we prefer very open styles on the inside. It is a little different than most restaurants. Mr. Morrow: Could you describe what the new facade is going to be and what the materials are? Mr. Stolaruk: Different materials that we are using, we have some brick and plaster look across the front with some awnings. We have a '44111. lot of window space on Plymouth Road as well as to the side. Again, this is to give it a look on the outside of the east side of New York. Mr. Lance: It will look like different store fronts and house fronts. Mr. Morrow: What type of colors can we look for in the awnings? We approved a Mexican restaurant not too long ago and there was some controversy about the awnings that went in there. Mr. Lance: Awnings are very limited. We use more of a window framing. The awnings would be the Italian colors, red and white or white and green. We do keep them low keyed but they do fit the Italian theme. Mr. LaPine: The 201 seats, does that include the 22 seats in the banquet room? Mr. Lance: Yes it does. Mr. TaPine: So actually it would be 179 seats in the main restaurant and 22 in the banquet room. 13621 Mr. Stolaruk: That is correct. Mr. Lance If I could add, Mr. Alanskas has asked about previous restaurants and what is going to be different. We really cater to a value conscience community and it has been well received. We have done real well in our Rochester restaurant. We have been very successful, and we think we can achieve the same success here too. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to inquire about the extent of the renovations that you made to the building. I have been by there periodically and it appears that you are making a very substantial investment in renovating the building. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Stolaruk: That is correct. It is a very large investment. Mr. Engebretson: Are you at liberty to give us a range of dollars that you are investing in that? Mr. Stolaruk: In the $60,000 to $100,000 range. Mr. Engebretson: Then it is a substantial investment. You wouldn't consider that a minor face lift? You would consider that a substantial renovation? Mr. Stolaruk: This is a major renovation going on to this building. Mr. Engebretson: Your position with the company again was? Mr. Stolaruk: My position is to handle the construction and renovation program and Ray's position is handling management on site. Mr. Engebretson: So when we say a substantial construction project, that is an expert opinion. Mr. Stolaruk: That is correct. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-2-26 closed. Mr. McCann: I have a little problem with this. Because of the expansion of restaurants in the area, the City has been well served in the Plymouth Road area. We have cut down other restaurants in the past because of the number of restaurants we have in that area of the City. They bought this and they have 154 seats. I don't think there has been a showing that it is necessary at this time to expand it. I feel it may be unfair to the other restaurants in the area; therefore, I am going to make a motion to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was 13622 #8-151-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 30, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-8-2-26 by Norm LePage/Liberty One Corp. , d/b/a East Side Mario's, requesting waiver use approval to expand the seating capacity for a full service restaurant to be located in an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Avenue and Merriman Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-2-26 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the subject area is currently well served with uses similar to the proposed use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to make a comment. If they were willing to live with 154 seats, it is my understanding that they wouldn't have to go through this process. The real issue here tonight is whether they can operate with 154 seats, which they are entitled to, or 201. I think that is really what is happening. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Piercecchi, IaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Would you like to get something on the public record sir? Norm LePage: I apologize for not speaking sooner. The restaurant construction was based on the fact that when we first went into the property there was an occupancy permit in the restaurant that indicated seating for 200 patrons. It was not until we were well into the construction phase that we discovered that the occupancy permitted for the property was 156. In addition to that, there is a significant financial hardship if, in fact, we are not permitted to do the restaurant for approximately 200 patrons. East Side Mario's 13623 is a franchise which is owned by Pepsi-Co and I am the local franchisee. Their prototype store is approximately 200 seats. They don't permit restaurants to be built with 156 seats. I *44.1. know this is all coming in after the horse has left the barn but I would at least like to let you be aware of these things. We would not have spent the amount of money we are spending were we faced with the circumstance of having 150 seats. There is no way we could ever hope to recoup our investment on that basis. Primarly we are a family oriented restaurant. It is not children tolerant. It is children friendly. Consequently, the prices are very moderate and it takes a significant amount of clientele to be able to justify the investment we are putting into the property. I just wanted to let you know that. I apoligize for not coming up sooner. I should have and I won't make that mistake again. Mr. Engebretson: I think it is regrettable sir that you proceeded with this huge investment based on that faulty information. Mr. LePage: It was our fault that we didn't check it out further. Mr. Engebretson: Sometimes these things occur because people take it upon themselves to extend the waiver uses well beyond that which was granted, and obviously the City is not in a position to be counting tables and chairs in every restaurant and every other type of business, but it is not unusual for someone to have a waiver use for 150 seats and suddenly we find 250 seats there and then they need more parking, etc. This isn't the end. This is really the beginning of the process. I would certainly encourage you to participate in the City Council meeting. Mr. LePage: I will. Again, I apologize for not coming up sooner. Mr. Engebretson: No need to apologize. I do want to express my regret that you were not fully aware of the circumstances. It is unfortunate that it reached this point with those kind of faulty points of information being depended on. You have ten days to appeal to Council. It is important that you do it in that time frame. Mr. Morrow: I think had we seen the site plan when they were making the alterations to the building this would have all been discovered prior to your construction. I don't know how we got to this point where you have a major investment and all of a sudden we are finding out that the information you had was not in accordance with what was approved in the past. It is unfortunate because when you make a vote you want to make it with all the information on hand and you certainly laid things on us after the fact. I don't mean to prolong it. I just wanted to make that comment. `., 13624 Mr. LePage: I appreciate that. I have operated restaurants in and around the community of Metropolitan Detroit for approximately 20 years and we are good neighbors and we have won beautification New the in many cities where we have had restaurants. I think the restaurant will be an asset to the community, especially seeing as it is a family oriented restaurant so I am going to do whatever I can to convince the City Council that we need this opportunity. Mr. Engebretson: I think you were somewhat betrayed by the process but now that you know perhaps you can do a better job at the next step. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-3-7 by Terry and Frank Czekaj requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 12, Carrington Estates, located south of Seven Mile Road between Wayne and Laurel Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating since there are no City maintained utilities within the easement in question, their office would have no objections to the vacating proposal. They state the remaining 12 feet of the easement must remain unencumbered from a standpoint of surface drainage. Secondly, other utility companies should be contacted as to the exact location of their facilities relative to the eight (8) foot vacating ,'`' proposal. We have heard nothing yet fruit the other utility companies. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is it safe to assume that since we haven't heard from them that they have no interest in this easement? Mr. Nagy: I think that is a fair assumption. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Frank Czekaj, 18726 Gary Lane: The reason we want the easement in back is we bought a 24 foot pool before we moved here that we brought with us. When we moved in we were unaware of the 20 foot natural drainage in the back. In order to put the pool in we found out that we had to vacate some of the area back there. None of the yards in this area are fenced in so in order to conform with this we are planning to put a deck around the pool and this would all go along with the City requirements. That is why we are asking for this extra eight feet of the 20 foot easement. Mr. LaPine: John, does this easement go all along all those parcels? Mr. Nagy: Yes it does. 13625 Mr. LaPine: Are we vacating all these parcels or just this one? Mr. Nagy: Just this one. When we received the letter from Engineering indicating there were no City maintained utilities in the area Sow and they recommended approval, we then corresponded with them to ask them if we don't need the eight feet, why not make it uniform and have all the property owners benefit by the reduction. We are still waiting for a report back from Engineering. We may have a companion petition and address the full length of the easement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-3-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-152-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 30, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-8-3-7 by Terry and Frank Czekaj requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 12, Carrington Estates, located south of Seven Mile Road between Wayne and Laurel Roads in the he Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-3-7 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed area to be vacated is not needed to serve or protect any public utility. 2) That the subject area can be more advantageously used by the property owner. 3) That no objections to the proposed vacating have been received from any City department or public utility company. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. 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. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 688th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 16, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was 13626 #8-153-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 688th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 16, 1994 are hereby approved. `Kw A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, T. Pine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-8-15 by John D. Dinan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 37751 Pembroke Street in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway. The building takes up the north 229 feet of the property. The remaining 3 1/2 acres is designated as wetlands and is unbuildable. He is proposing to build a 21,456 square foot office building. The parking meets the requirements. They need 86 spaces. They are proposing 111 parking spaces. Landscaping designated as wetlands is 49%. They are only required to have 15% so they have enough `"" landscaping. The elevation is a typical John Dinan building. The building will be a combination of brick, wood siding and fieldstone with gables. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dinan, do you have anything to add? John Dinan: I believe the Commission wanted to get an idea of what the colors would be for the proposed building so we brought a sample. It is a typical early American brick. It gives it a nice texture. Also, it will be fieldstone on the gables plus copper over the windows to give it a nice artistic treatment. We use a high hip roof, which again is the early American look, plus there will be a certain amount of gables coming out of that roof. Mr. Engebretson: So it will look like some other buildings around town? Mr. Dinan: It will look very similar to the building that we have at the corner of Six Mile and Newburgh, which is 100% occupied. Mr. Engebretson: John if that is the case, is that a relatively recent accomplishment? 13627 Mr. Dinan: We lost a major tenant there. They bought our building at Merriman and Schoolcraft. That was the Michigan Risk Management Company and they had approximately 30% of the building but we have since filled it up. Mr. Engebretson: So now that you have it filled up I trust that the For Lease sign will be coming down. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Dinan do you have the landscape plans here this evening? Mr. Dinan: Yes they were submitted at the last meeting. (They presented the landscape plans) Mr. Alanskas: Scott, of that 49%, how much of the wetlands would not be irrigated? Mr. Miller: I would say all of it. Mr. Alanskas: Of the 49% landscaping, how much is wetlands? Mr. Dinan: I would say the majority of it would be left in its natural state. Mr. Alanskas: Around the building do we actually have 15% landscaping? Mr. Miller: Yes, it is over 15%. Mr. Alanskas: And it will all be irrigated? '44°' Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any tenants for this building? Mr. Dinan: I may have one major tenant to take the whole building. I am not at liberty to say who it is. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #8-154-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-8-15 by John D. Dinan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 37751 Pembroke Street in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the substitution of a greenbelt in place of the protective wall and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1, dated 2 Aug. 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. Architects, which shall include double striping of the parking lot, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 13628 2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet L-1, dated 2 Aug. 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 2, dated 2 Aug. 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-8-16 by Borin Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 11700 Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. Mr. Miller: This is located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Newburgh Roads. It is a vacant lot now. They are proposing to construct a 6,400 square foot building on the corner. The parking, they need 24 spaces and they are proposing 24. The landscaping is 34% of the total area where 15% is required. Also, back in 1989 they received a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. They are required to have 75 feet. They only have 25 feet. They were deficient 50 feet, which is what `r. they received the variance for. The elevation plan shows the building will be brick with dryvet over the window as a highlight over the window area. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, just for a point of clarification for anyone watching, the variance granted then resulted in this being a complying proposal. Mr. Miller: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments you wish to make. Mike Dul: I am the Landscape Architect. I regret that there is an illness with the owners so I am the Landscape Architect and hopefully I can answer any questions you may have. Mr. Engebretson: We did have a chance to get pretty deep into this issue last week when they were here at the study meeting but there may be a few questions. Mr. McCann: Scott, the north elevation is what the cars are going to be palling into, correct? hr. 13629 Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. McCann: They are going to be parking up against that back elevation. It looks like that is going to be pretty prominent to Newburgh `.. Road coming south. Will it have much of an appearance? Is that just solid brick on the back wall? Mr. Nagy: It is a full brick wall. Mr. McCann: I am not sure about the layout. Basically that is going to be shown as you come down Newburgh? Mr. Dul: On that corner we do have quite a bit of landscaping at the main entry. It is pretty intense there as it wraps around that northwest corner so as you are driving by your eye will definitely catch that corner at the main entry. Mr. McCann: I like the views from Plymouth Road and Newburgh Road. I am just wondering, to me your client base is going to be the one pulling into that parking lot looking at the back entrance of the building. Do they have to walk around the building to enter? Mr. Dul: They have to walk around to the corner, which is the main entry. Mr. McCann: So they have to go around the walk behind the cars to get to that sidewalk? Mr. Dul: They would probably walk through the roadway, the aisle. Mr. McCann: Any sidewalk plans? Mr. Dul: Not really. In the winter time there will probably be a lot of snow there. It would be no different than a shopping center when you get out of your car and walk down the aisleway into the store. There won't really be that many visitors. They are individual owners. It is not like a lot of customers come up to use the facility. Mr. McCann: John, by bringing the driveway around, would that be an expensive thing? Mr. Nagy: I think they could extend the dryvet into that brick panel just to kind of break it up and maybe even pick up a little splash of it again over the door to break up the starkness of the brick. Mr. Dul: I don't know about the possibility of tampering with the architecture because the architect is a very good architect. This is a sophisticated contemporary building. The intent is not to emphasize that door, which is an exit. 13630 Mr. McCann: I am just wondering if by bringing that strip around across the back. Without the owners here we can't do much. Mr. Nagy: All he would have to do is just make the band like it is penetrating into the brick area just to break it up and then highlight it as a breaking point, and with the landscaping I think you would have a very attractive building. Not that it isn't now, it would just enhance it a little bit. I think we could work it out with the petitioner. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, while I certainly don't qualify as an architect, I think in keeping with some of the recent major buildings that we and the Council have dealt with that we have gotten backs of buildings to look like fronts of buildings, etc. , which has worked very effectively, that dryvet is not a 14 carat gold product, and I think there would be a possibility it should even be considered to be carried across the back of that building as one alternative, but if there are architectural reasons to do that, I guess I would defer to the experts. Mr. Dul: I am sure it is less expensive than brick. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-155-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-8-8-16 by Bonin Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located Nftw at 11700 Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 8-12-94, as revised, prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc. , Landscape Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to with the additional condition that the petitioner shall get together with the Planning Department staff so as to add additional dryvet or decorative material around the side of the building to improve the appearance of the back of the building; 2) That the landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc. , Landscape Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engehretson: The understanding is that by this time next week it will be 13631 worked out. If that isn't convenient for you, we could rescind this resolution and defer it to the next meeting. In the spirit of being cooperative and giving you the fast track Nkomo" we will leave it like that, just so you know what the rules are. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is election of officers for 1994-1995. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was #8-156-94 RESOLVED that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Article II of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, the following officers were elected to the Planning Commission for the period commencing September 1994 to June 1995. Chairman: Jack Engebretson Vice Chairman: James C. McCann Secretary R. Lee Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared each of the officers duly elected to the Planning Commission for the period September 1994 to June 1995. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 689th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 30, 1994 was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Nft. / 4� I James C. McCann, Secretary fn ATTEST: i1L '14 ,�,� �ti? Jack Engebreiison, Chairman jg sew