Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-03-22 13353 MINUTES OF THE 681st REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 22, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 681st Regular Meeting 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. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Brenda Lee Fandrei Robert Alanskas William LaPine Members absent: Raymond W. Tent Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance deleting churches as permitted uses in C-2 districts. Mr. Engebretson: This is a request by the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold this public hearing and we look for a motion to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-65-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted uses in C-2 districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13354 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance establishing parking requirements for transmission repair shops and other types of auto repair facilities. Mr. Engebretson: This item comes to us from the Roads Beautification Committee and it is intended to give consideration to whether or not the City ordinance provides a proper guideline as to the amount of storage space required for these types of facilities so we will look for a motion to set that public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #3-66-94 RESOLVED THAT, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held on a proposed amendment to Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance establishing parking requirements for transmission repair shops and other types of auto repair facilities. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #47-94, to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Section 4.02 of the Zoning Now Ordinance with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 Districts. Mr. Engebretson: As Secretary McCann said, this item comes to us from the City Council. We need a motion to set that public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-67-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #47-94, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 Districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: We had a discussion as to whether we were going to amend this or whether we were going to go forward with this. Is that correct John? Mr. Nagy: We will go forward with it but, depending upon the outcome of the hearing, we may make another recommendation. 13355 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 680th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 8, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #3-68-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 680th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 8, 1994 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Engebretson, Alanskas ABSENT: Tent 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 94-3-8-5 by William C. Forster Corp. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter exterior building elevations of the restaurant located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive in Section 18. Mr. Miller: This proposal is to alter the exterior elevations of the Ground Nur Round Restaurant, which is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Laurel Park Drive. To clarify something, there are already two existing awnings on the building but because these awnings will be taken down completely and the new awnings will be put up with new skeletons and materials, the proposal before you tonight is for three new awnings. One awning will be positioned over the windows that face Six Mile Road. The other awning will be positioned over the windows that face Laurel Park Drive and the third awning will be positioned over the entrance way of the restaurant. The awnings will be a green and yellow vertical stripe pattern and will be totally back-lit. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Miller, where does the third awning go? Doesn't it take the place of a sign? Mr. Miller: No, there are two over the windows and a third is over the entranceway of the restaurant. Mr. Morrow: Where is the third? Mr. Miller: There is no third at this time. There are three proposed and two existing now. Mr. Morrow: That is what I want to know where the third one is. 13356 Mr. Miller: It is going to be over the windows facing Laurel Park Drive. Mr. Nagy: They are taking one down and replacing it with a striped one. Mr. Morrow: I was out there today and I saw two awnings and the sign. So there is going to be a third awning? Mr. Miller: They are not doing anything to the sign. The third awning is not existing now but will be put up now. Mr. Morrow: Is the size of those stripes representative of the actual size stripes? Mr. Miller: I believe these are. The petitioner might be able to explain. Steve Hinds: I am with the William Forster Corp. out of Victor, New York. Mr. Engebretson: Who do you represent, Ground Round or the sign company? Mr. Hinds: The sign company. Mr. Morrow: Is that representative of the size of the stripe? Mr. Hinds: Yes it is. Mr. Alanskas: At the study meeting we discussed if it had to be back-lit. Could you just have the awnings and not have it back-lit? Mr. Hinds: I think the Ground Round would be willing to consider that. Mr. Alanskas: Because we discussed if you could change the colors to a more softer tone but you wanted all your restaurants to be the same color. Mr. Hinds: Yes and they have done some quite extensive work in trying to formulate a stripe pattern so it doesn't look circusey or unsightly. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any restaurants now that are not back-lit with the same type awning? Mr. Hinds: Not currently. Mr. Alanskas: How many do you have now with the three awnings now with those colors in your chain? Mr. Hinds: I am not sure of the figure. Mr. Alanskas: There are some done with the new colors? Mr. Hinds: Absolutely. Mrs. Fandrei: Are any of the restaurants retaining the original colors? Mr. Hinds: No, they are all going to the new color scheme. 13357 Mrs. Fandrei: I guess what I am having a problem with as I go around town, I am noticing that everybody is trying to out color everybody else for attention and I am starting to get the feeling that we are starting to look like Detroit. Mr. Hinds: I understand. That is what I was trying to allude to is they did some real intense research trying to get the stripes just the right size so it is a nice uniform look. Mrs. Fandrei: There is only one right size for me and that is one color or what they originally have. I cannot support this because we are finding a few other locations like Pet Supplies Plus at Seven Mile and Middlebelt went into these colors and they are strong and I just can't be supportive of it. Mr. Hinds: That is their color scheme nationwide and they are trying to represent a distinct image so they can be recognized at a glance. Mr. Engebretson: Well I am going to echo Mrs. Fandrei's comment that she made that the move toward being a little glitzier than your neighbor, I find to be of great concern especially in this particular location right across the street from one of the jewels, a regional shopping center that attracts a great many visitors, and while it is true that these colors may cause the restaurant to be a little more recognizable, you know birds up above a landfill are recognizable too, and I think they failed in their mission to find the right stripes and the right colors to not look circusey because I think that is exactly what that looks like, no offense intended. We have another restaurant that just came to town and it is a new venture %fty that didn't have existing stores on line at the time they went through their approval process and the resultant awning that appeared on that store is so offensive to the neighbors, to residents, to other business folks, other members of the community, City officials and otherwise, that they have been asked to change the awning and they have agreed to do it. This challenges that one for most outrageous color scheme in the City in my humble opinion. I, too, would find this to be objectionable whether it is back-lit or not. It is definitely intended to draw attention. I had lunch at that restaurant today with Mr. Morrow. It is a first class restaurant. I go there from time to time. It is a good restaurant. They have good food. They have good service. It is a nice place to go. This downgrades the restaurant in my opinion. This isn't going to help the restaurant. The quality of the food service and otherwise is the key to success in the restaurant business. Is there anything you want to add? Mr. Hinds: No I don't think there is anything else I want to add at this point. Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your coming. Don't take any of this personally. We live with this. You live in New York. We live here and we drive by that every day and you know it is forever. Mr. Hinds: Is this something we might stand a better chance if we did eliminate the lighting in it? 13358 Mr. Engebretson: Not in that form. Not striped like that. It is the colors and the fact that it happens to be the corporate colors doesn't cut any ice at all. We know that major corporations, particularly restaurants, make exceptions all the time in certain cities that have real strong control over these matters. I am sure you are well aware of that. From my perspective Livonia falls into that class of city. Mr. Hinds: If they change the colors to a beige and dark green, would that be more to your liking? Mr. Engebretson: It would have a better chance but we would have to see it. Would you want to reconsider? Would you rather put this on the table rather than face a possible denial? Mr. Hinds: Absolutely. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, then with the light of the new information I would like to table this until you can present us with the same type of rendering and color scheme and I would be delighted to re-evaluate it. Mr. Hinds: I think they have done one in that scheme for another city that rejected this. Mrs. Fandrei: That is why I was asking you if they were all this color scheme. Mr. Hinds: I think all but one or two maybe. Mrs. Fandrei: We would like to see that. u`, Mr. Engebretson: We are not against awnings. We are not against upgrading businesses to give them the fairest possible chance to compete in the marketplace but we are concerned about standards so we would like to work with you on this. Don't interpret this as assurance that beige and green will be something that will receive an opposite kind of view but I think that we need to look at it to make a determination but subdued colors that are appropriate for the area is really the key to success. Mrs. Fandrei: What time period would you need? Mr. Hinds: If you could give me a week or ten days. Mr. Engebretson: How about April 12th? Mr. Hinds: April 12th is fine. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #3-69-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-3-8-5 by William C. Forster Corp. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter exterior building elevations of the restaurant located at 17040 Laurel Park Drive in Section 18 until the Regular Meeting of April 12, 1994. 13359 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 94-3-8-6 by Ross Financial, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by A"' Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a building addition to the shopping center located at 33523 Eight Mile Road in Section 4. Mr. Miller: This is a proposal to build an addition to the Northridge Commons Shopping Center, which is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads. They are proposing to add a waiting or staging area for the MESC offices, which are located in the shopping center and will occupy 14,265 square feet of space. They are proposing to add the addition between the existing clock tower and the inner elbow of the L shaped building. The materials will match the materials of the existing shopping center. Also I wanted to point out that at the study meeting it was discussed about handicap parking. The new site plan shows they have added handicap parking along the front or adjacent to the new addition. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, that drop box, that will be towards the rear of the building. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: It is not on the site plan but I know at the study meeting she said she would put it here because of the traffic. Mr. Alanskas: So they would have to drive around in back of the building to drop off literature? �.• Mr. Miller: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: Is that going to be posted in the ground or on the building? Mr. Miller: I thought she said it was on the building. Mrs. Fandrei: It is there. It is like a free-standing mailbox. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? The petitioner was not present. Mr. Morrow: Based on our study meeting, this is going to be, as I understand it, a waiting room or a staging room that will be built by the shopping center. It will not be part of the state operation and it was there primarily because the state has a no smoking rule within their facility so this was to be added so that this would preclude people having to leave the state buildings and move out into the open area and mill around outside. This was primarily to give them a place to, if they wanted to smoke or to stage, to do it on the inside without spilling over into the parking lot. That was basically the rationale for this addition at this particular spot. Mr. Engebretson: Am I hearing the petitioner was not expected to be here tonight? 13360 Mr. Morrow: I am not sure if that was the case, John? Mr. Nagy: In fact, I had an occasion to talk to Melissa this morning. She wanted my fax number to verify that this matter was reviewed by the fir. Kroger Company and they had concurred in that matter. Mr. Engebretson: Did you receive that fax? Mr. Nagy: Yes, as of 10:00 or 10:30 this morning, so I fully expected to see her. Mr. Morrow: There was no direction that her presence would not be required. Mr. Engebretson: So maybe we should hold off. Mr. Morrow: I would like to think they are doing that for the benefit of the City of Livonia but another resident was feeling the pressures of their milling around outside as I think Mr. LaPine will attest to. Mr. Engebretson: I wasn't here so I am just taking directions. Mr. Morrow: That is why I am trying to fill you in the best I know. Mr. LaPine: I took the time Saturday to go over there and talk to the manager of the Kroger store and told him what had transpired and what was happening. He is not very happy with the situation being there. They have had an increase in the problems there since the MESC office has been there. He told me that when they first learned about the MESC office coming in there he called the Krogers headquarters and nobody at headquarters knew anything about it. I Nair have a message here tonight that Mr. Larusko of the Kroger Store at Eight Mile Road called and he wants to know, because I told him that the lady that was here that evening told us that they got permission from the Kroger store to allow the MESC to go in there because she indicated to us that night that Krogers had veto power over what goes in that shopping center. Apparently we do have a copy of a letter here from Krogers dated June 30, 1993 giving them the permission to put the MESC in. The gentleman from Krogers wants me to bring a copy of this letter to him because he wants to talk to somebody at their office about it. Anyways, he said one of the big problems they have is the parking. The MESC is taking up most of their parking in front of their building. I said it was my understanding they had 50 employees. They were supposed to park behind the building. I was through there Monday and I went through there again today and it looks like they are parking back there because there were about 38 cars parked behind the building this morning when I was there. This was about 10:15-10:30. I talked to the gentleman who owns the restaurant. He has a problem. He said the same thing. They are taking up his parking in front of his building which he feels is a detriment to him. Secondly, he has a real problem with the drop box in the back of the building. He said when he leaves there in the evening there are cars coming in there and dropping these things off and he is leaving through the back and he is carrying a considerable amount of receipts and he is 13361 jumpy about that. My wife happened to be shopping there Friday night and the police were there at Krogers arresting somebody for shoplifting so you have to understand I am not too happy with it being there. I am not really happy about this addition. If people want to smoke, let them go outside and maybe if they get cold enough they will quit smoking. I don't really have any compassion for this operation. From the word go we were told this was going to be a quality shopping center. If that is quality that we have down there, God help us. At this point, and I am not saying whether I am going to vote for or against it, but I think we have a chance to maybe do something about the building that is down at the other end. It isn't completed. I am for tabling this. John informed me this evening that they have a meeting with the Inspection Department about what is going to happen with the building. Until we find out what is happening there, I am for tabling this and therefore I will make a motion to table. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #3-70-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-3-8-6 by Ross Financial, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a building addition to the shopping center located at 33523 Eight Mile Road in Section 4, to date uncertain. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: I can mention to you Bill that the Roads Beautification Committee directed the Inspection Department to look into condemnation proceedings on that skeleton of a building down at the eastern end of that property. I don't know where that sits but that was the direction several weeks ago. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, my gut feeling is they will come up with a new deal that they have some client sitting in the wings and give them another six months. As I was telling John it wouldn't be so bad if they left the skeleton up, if they would remove all the dirt that has been piled up there for two years, level the area, clean it up. When I went back there today, they are using it as a junk pile back there. Thank God it is apartments behind there and not homes or we would have a lot of people down here screaming bloody murder. Mr. Morrow: I concur with Mr. LaPine. It is one thing to have a skeleton of a building. Perhaps they have suffered some economic hardships but to just let the site become derelict, let the weeds grow, the fences go down, etc. I see no excuse for that. That is just my opinion. Mr. Engebretson: Something is going to happen there. The site plan has expired. They are looking into condemnation proceedings. I don't know where that stands. Do you happen to know John? 13362 Mr. Nagy: That is the purpose for the meeting to show cause here as to why they should be cited. Mr. Engebretson: So they are at that point? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is why the Building Department is holding their hearing. Mr. Engebretson: Do you know when that is scheduled? Mr. Nagy: I do not know for sure but we can advise you. Mr. Engebretson: We would appreciate that. That has been a real controversial corner. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-3-8-7 by John Del Signore requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center and storage building on property located at 31862 Plymouth Road in Section 27. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads. They are proposing to build a small commercial center with two buildings on the site. The principal building will be 8,100 square feet and will be used for commercial purposes. Because of the parking the site will only be able to hold 4 units in the commercial center. The second building, which is located to the rear of the property, will be utilized as a storage accessory building and will be 3,500 square feet. Parking on the site meets the requirement of the ordinance. Landscaping is about half of the required. Fifteen percent is required and it is 0r" about 7 1/2% landscaping. The site plan also shows that they are proposing a sign and it would be a monument sign and it meets the ordinance so it is permitted. Mr. Engebretson: What would be on the sign Scott? Mr. Miller: It doesn't say. I don't know if they know what they are going to put on it yet. Mrs. Fandrei: Do we have a rendering of the sign other than that little drawing? Mr. Miller: No, it just says white background with black lettering. Mrs. Fandrei: We asked for a rendering didn't we? Mr. Nagy: A rendering of the building. Mrs. Fandrei: Also a set-up of the sign so we could see it. Mr. Nagy: There is a graphic there on the sign that says brick with white background and black lettering. 13363 Mrs. Fandrei: We don't have anything in front of us John. We don't have an updated site plan with the landscaping or the sign. I have nothing in front of me. I can't see it from here. Do we have still those parking spaces in front of the building Scott? `o. Mr. Miller: The handicap spaces? Mrs. Fandrei: No the two spaces on the south end of the building. Mr. Engebretson: Let Mr. Del Signore come down and answer her question. John Del Signore: I live at 14680 Fairlane. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. LaPine shared his site plan with me John so now I see what the sign looks like. It is brick outlined. Is that right? Mr. Del Signore: It is a brick monument sign, whatever the City requires. Mrs. Fandrei: It looks like brick on the sides and the top. Mr. Del Signore: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I wanted to know. The two spaces at the south end of the building, in front of the building where the sign is going to be, you still have two parking places there, right? Mr. Del Signore: Yes Ma'am. Mrs. Fandrei: We are still looking at only 7 1/2% in the landscaping? ` .. Mr. Del Signore: No we improved the landscaping. We took about 2 1/2 to 3 parking spaces. Mrs. Fandrei: Scott just said we went from 5% to 7 1/2% so we have only had an increase in 2 1/2%? Mr. Del Signore: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: So we are at half of what is required. Mr. Del Signore: I don't know what is required but we have improved from last time. I talked with Mr. Morrow. Mr. Morrow: We had asked during the intervening weeks that you meet with the staff and try to beef up the landscaping to get as close as possible to the 15% requirement and we are seeing what the fruits of that were tonight. Mrs. Fandrei: But we are still short 7 1/2%. What my concern is John, the Plymouth Roads Beautification Committee has been working really hard to try and improve the whole image of Plymouth Road. Your whole building, the Fonte D'Amore is an example. I mean it is one of the nicest along Plymouth Road. You have done a beautiful job there. `''"' Mr. Del Signore: This would be an improvement compared to what is over there right now. 13364 Mrs. Fandrei: There is no doubt. It is not really too neat. Mr. Del Signore: Especially on both sides of us. We don't have any landscaping and the building is sitting right in front of Plymouth Road. r... Mrs. Fandrei: What my concern is, because we are trying so hard to upgrade Plymouth Road, I understand your generosity in trying to help your neighbor with parking but I think our main concern has to be, there is nothing there now and you are going to make improvements, to make the best improvements we can while we have the opportunity and to eliminate those two parking spaces in the south of the property, which you admitted you don't really need. You are above the parking requirement. To eliminate those two and to develop them into the landscaping, which would balance the building you already own and is your present restaurant, that would be a real compliment to your present building. As I said it is one of the prettiest along there. Mr. Del Signore: As I explained at the study session, I promised my neighbor, because he has a real tough time over there and I promised him I was going to give him two parking spaces. I was going to put a sidewalk over there and try to work with this man. That way he will have two extra parking spots. That is what I was trying to do there and I don't think with two extra parking spaces you wouldn't have that much more landscaping. Mrs. Fandrei: The sidewalk would have to be connecting anyways. The sidewalk is already on the site plan. It is a connecting sidewalk and it is to connect with the existing so that is already there. I guess what I am saying is, I think it is nice that you promised him that, but I No ' think for the Plymouth Road visibility for what we are trying to accomplish as a City body for Plymouth Road, we need to eliminate those two parking places and use them for landscaping, and I feel very strongly about this John. Mr. Del Signore: I made my comment. We did improve the landscaping from last time and I tried to work the best I could. I would like to have these two spaces but you do what you like. Mr. Alanskas: Would it be a hardship on parking space #16 and #15, which is on the west side of the building? Could you use those for that store? It is not that far away. Mr. Del Signore: If I have to go that route, I will go that route. Mr. Alanskas: Would that help them out having those two spots there? Mr. Del Signore: I would imagine sir. Mr. Alanskas: John, what landscaping would that give us percentage wise? Mr. Nagy: He removed two before and that increased it by 2 1/2% so eliminating two more would put it up to 10%. Mr. Alanskas: That is a lot closer to the 15% than the 7 1/2%. 13365 Mr. Engebretson: If that is all, a motion would be in order. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, I am still not ready to make a motion. I am still not satisfied with only 10%. I still feel we have the opportunity. `.► The back building is strictly storage. We are looking at a spec building. Personally, until we reach a little bit closer to the 15% I am not ready to make a motion or to approve it. Mr. Engebretson: I would just make a comment that any additional landscaping in the rear, Mr. Morrow and I were there today and it looked to me like any landscaping installed anywhere except in the front, which we have discussed, would probably be a futile effort. I am not sure anyone would even see the landscaping in the back except for the people parking in the most remote parking spaces there. Is that what you have in mind Brenda? Mrs. Fandrei: No, I am looking in the front. I think there are more possibilities for front landscaping. We have had so many comments from the community in the south end that Plymouth Road has been an eyesore. It has been a concern to these folks. We have a Plymouth Road Beautification Committee. We have one of our Council people who is trying to concentrate on the blight of Plymouth Road and we have an opportunity here to upgrade and to do something more positive and I think we should take advantage of that opportunity. As I mentioned before Mr. Del Signore has one of the loveliest properties there, two doors over, and I would like to see this continued on this building. Mr. Engebretson: Lee Morrow has just suggested parking space #26 if that were converted to landscaping, that would then square the area off with the building to the west and that would probably be as close as we could get. Mrs. Fandrei: That sounds better. I will make the motion. Mr. Del Signore would you go along with that? Mr. Del Signore: Which one now? Mr. Engebretson: Replacing parking space #1, 2 and 26 with landscaping. That would square it up with that building to the east. Is that satisfactory? Can you handle that John? Mr. Del Signore: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, would I then refer to that as revised site plan with today's date? Mr. Nagy: Yes. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #3-71-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-3-8-7 by John Del Signore requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center and storage building on property located ``r. at 31862 Plymouth Road in Section 27, subject to the following conditions: 13366 1) That the Site and Landscaping Plan, as revised dated 3-22-94 is hereby approved and shall be adhered top 2) That the Elevation Plans, as revised dated 3-17-94 are hereby tea. approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the underground irrigation system as noted on the landscape plan shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be kept in a healthy condition and shall be installed prior to final inspection; 4) That based on the parking provided on the subject property, no more than 4 tenants will be permitted to occupy the retail building at any one time; 5) That the Sign Plan, as revised dated 3-22-94 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; as well as subject to the following additional condition, granted in the variance (appeal case #9403-24) by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) This site is to be developed and utilized as presented and approved, i.e. the building fronting Plymouth Road will be for commercial use and the building in the rear of the property will be for storage purposes. Further, at no time in the future shall these two buildings be connected. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Del Signore we certainly appreciate the fact that you said you promised those two parking spaces to your neighbor and we want the record to show it was the City's interest and the Planning Commission that caused that to change. However, you did say you °r" would make allowances for other parking spaces. I don't want it to sound like you went back on your commitment to your neighbor. By the same token I think we are serving the interest of the City better and there will still be space on your property. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: Tent Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 681st Regular Meeting held on March 22, 1994 was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION L James C. McCann, Secretary � C ATTEST: 0 CIt() '1n Jac Engebret on, Chairman jg