Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-01-26 16611 MINUTES OF THE 778TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 26, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 778th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately 60 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Elaine Koons Dan Piercecchi William LaPine Members absent: Robert Alanskas Michael Hale Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and Robby Williams were also present. Mr. McCann 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, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or (60 denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight,the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petition upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. McCann: We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plan. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-8-5 by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Super Tire Discount, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the commercial building located at 19268 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt between Seven Mile and Vassar Avenue. The zoning is C-2, General Commercial. The petitioner is requesting approval to refurbish the exterior of the existing Metro 25 Car Care Center located between a recently vacated Elias Brothers Big Boy Restaurant and a Mattress Discounters Store. The facility would be transformed into a Firestone Tire Store. The submitted Elevation Plan shows that the front or west exterior elevation of the building would be almost entirely modified. The existing canopy would be replaced with a new dryvit system along the top section of the wall. The existing main entrance doors would be moved slightly to the north and new large glass windows would replace 16612 The plan notes that a "New Metal Screen Around existing HVAC Units" would be erected. On the east or rear elevation new metal siding would be installed above the overhead doors. As with the front of the store,the existing glass overhead doors would remain. The remaining portion of the wall, which is concrete block, would be painted. The north elevation, which faces the Mattress Discounters Store would just be painted. Other than a small dryvit piece continued from the front of the building,the south elevation would also just be painted. Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence? Mr.Nagy: There is a letter dated January 20, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request of January 12, 1999,the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) Landscape requirement as proposed and noted on the site plan is deficient at 3.6% (1,201 S.F. where a minimum of 15% (4,965 s.f.) is required. Current landscaping on the site is at 1.0%(344 S.F.). (2) the signage as proposed would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of wall signs. This signage was not reviewed as part of this proposal. I trust this provides the requested information. The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Chris Bailey, 19268 Middlebelt. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your project and what you are doing? Mr. Bailey: Basically my partner and I purchased this building a couple of months ago. All through the process with all the intentions of updating this store from a 1970 tire store to a year 2000 tire store. The proposed site plan consists of all the basic things such as new dryvit around the building. New paint, new parking lot for the better of the community. We knew going along with that we would have to do this so we would really like to get going on this. Mr. Piercecchi: Could I see the south elevation? Mr. Bailey: Yes sir. Mr. Piercecchi: That faces Plymouth Road? Mr. Bailey: No. That faces Middlebelt. Right next to the Big Boy there. It is on the right hand side. As you are driving north on Middlebelt. Mr. Piercecchi: I thought the west would face Middlebelt. Mr. Bailey: The south wall would run parallel with Seven Mile. Mr. Piercecchi: That is going to be visible correct? Is there any way to break up that long wall? Wouldn't you like to add some windows in there? Wouldn't you like to get some light in there? 16613 Mr. Bailey: Absolutely. To wrap around the glass would be the only thing that I could propose to get better visibility there, better lighting in there. It is a solid masonry wall that is existing right there. Mr. Piercecchi: It's a nice building. It is a big improvement over what is there now. It just seems like such a long blank wall. The other one just faces out. Would you like to ask the other Commissioners if they would like to have that put in there, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: First I will let the Commissioners discuss the matter. Mr. LaPine: The only place you are putting new dryvit is on the front,the west elevation, is that correct? Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. LaPine: The other three sides is that a painted stripe or a vinyl stripe or what is that? Mr. Bailey: That is a painted stripe. Mr. LaPine: Does that include the west elevation? Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So it is painted all the way around? Mr. Bailey: Yes, The stripe is painted all the way around. Mr. LaPine: Do you have three bays, or four? Mr. Bailey: We have three bays facing Middlebelt on the west side and four on the east elevation. They are drive through type. Mr. LaPine: Where do you store tires that are taken off cars and how long do you keep them before you dispose of them? Mr. Bailey: New tire storage is in the rear of the building here. The used tires are stored in an enclosed container right here. Mr. LaPine: So it is in an enclosed area? Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I notice that you are going to repave the front parking lot. Is there a reason why you are not paving the rear parking lot? Mr. Bailey: At this point we are proposing the west elevation along with the north and south. 16614 Basically the front and both sides of the building and we would like to patch and repair the rear as necessary. Mr. LaPine: And you are going to double stripe it and things of that nature? Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Bailey, were you aware, before tonight, of the landscaping concern? Mr. Bailey: Absolutely and to address that,we have eliminated one parking spot, to accommodate the 15% landscaping with still maintaining the proper amount of sites. We are also going to berm the area along Middlebelt as well and approximately moving the parking lot losing another 4 to 6 feet along that area. We are losing parking space but gaining landscaping. Mrs. Koons: Can I ask John a question? John, does that bring us above the 3.6 %or is that to get to the 3.6%? Mr. Nagy: To get to the 3.6%. Mrs. Koons: Is that the most room we can squeeze out of that? Mr. Nagy: Without taking significant parking space away from them. Mr. LaPine: Your signage, is that all the signage we will get? Just the Firestone and then the little signs over each one of the doors? Mr. Bailey: The ZBA will have to approve the signs above the bay doors. Mr. Miller: We can approve the Firestone sign tonight but not the signs over the doors. He will have go to the Zoning Board for that. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, we will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Michael Sternkoff: I am Chris's partner. It does have an approximate 8'wraparound around the building. It only comes down 8'on the south side then the rest of the stripe is painted. Mr. McCann: One other question for both one of you. With regard to the south end of the building, only a certain portion is going to be visible on Middlebelt as you drive forward. Would you have an objection to bringing the window around the building? (6w Mr. Sternkoff: There were two issues that were brought to our attention, we actually looked at doing that to. One was a safety issue. Because our showroom is going to be on the south end of the showroom and the thoroughfare to bring cars around the back of the building was right there. So that was one safety issue we had right there 16615 because it has been hit before, when it was owned by the previous owners. We could address that and look at that but it was a safety concern on our part. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-14-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on January 26, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-1-8-5 by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Super Tire Discount, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the commercial building located at 19268 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by Wilson&Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 23, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS-1 prepared by Wilson& Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 23, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by Wilson&Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 23, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the walls of the trash dumpster area and oil tank storage enclosure shall be painted and constructed to match the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 7) That all new light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height. 8) That only the 67 sq. ft. "Firestone" wall sign, as shown on the approved Elevation Plan, is approved at this time. All other signage, either freestanding or wall mounted, shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 16616 Mr. McCann: The Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda is closed. We will now go on to the Public Hearing items. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-1-21 by Steak N Shake, Inc., requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12 from AG(General Agriculture) and C-1 (Local Business) to C-2 (General Business). Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy; We have a letter dated December 21, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided by Basney& Smith with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. Furthermore, be advised that the survey description provided by Steak N Shake, Inc., is in error due to a missing section and should be rectified. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. The error has been corrected. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Harry Meshberger, 36 S. Pennsylvania Street,Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. I am a real estate manager for this area. I realize this is a rezoning situation however I think you might like to know what Steak N Shake is all about. Where we come from. Where we have been. So I'll take the first few minutes to tell you about the company. Steak N Shake was founded in 1934 in Normal, Illinois. That was the first restaurant we now have about 295 restaurants as far west as Kansas City, as far north as Lansing. We are in Florida, Georgia and several of the southern states. We just moved eastward to Columbus, Ohio. We are still concentrated in the Midwest. We are a family concept, sit down restaurant. We do not serve alcohol. Food is prepared when it is ordered, not like fast food restaurants that have hamburgers sitting around. We do have a carry out window. We have found that today a lot of people wish to take food back to work with them or take food home with them. Very few restaurants that are not fast food have fast food carry out windows with the exception, I understand, Chili's is going to have a carry out window. In the commercial endeavors as you all know we have banks, pharmacies, video stores, dry cleaners, and it is my understanding that some grocery stores even have carry out windows and other businesses have carry out windows. Our restaurant is smaller than a lot of other casual dining concepts. It is 3690 sq. ft. Our prototypical has 97 seats or 99 seats. We have a concept also that works well with our carry out. But here again, no alcohol. We have a concept also that works well with our carry out situation where we have a thing called fax-a-sack and actually fax in an order. Some people who work in offices will fax in an order and 16617 they will tell us exactly what time they want to come over and pick it up and then go back to work. This works out good for us because we don't have to have as many parking spaces as a typical restaurant might have to have. A big difference, however, between our drive through and the fast food people, for instance, McDonald's will typically do 60 to 75%of their volume through the carryout window. Typically we do 20 to 25% so it's not a big factor but it is a big enough factor that we do it and we don't do any restaurants without a carryout window. One of the other items that is unique is that we are a 24 hour operation. All of our stores, except for maybe one of two, are a 24 hour operation. We have to have people there for cleaning and re-stocking and that type of thing and we found that it made sense to stay open 24 hours. Another thing is that there is no confusion. Everybody knows that Steak N Shake is open 24 hours. We compete with Denny's, Bob Evans, Chili's, Johnny Rochus, Tim Horton. People knows other restaurant close but they don't know what time. Our competition is a casual dining type of restaurant but we don't compete with them because we are unique. We don't give away toys. We don't have playgrounds on our sites. We don't have waitresses that sing on our tables. We just have good food. Back in July when I met with you, it was a study session, we were asked about the 24 hour operation. Why we did it and why it was so unique and I thought, is it really unique. So I took some time after that meeting and I drove your streets. In addition to the Walgreen's, which is located next door and is open 24 hours a day and has a carry out window,there is a Total Convenience, AMOCO, Mobil Oil, 7-11, Pizza Hut, Sunoco,Looney Bakery, newspapers I counted over a dozen operations out there that are open 24 hours a day. So there must be good reason for it. One of the other questions that came up was what about security. I asked one of these operators in one of these 24 hour establishments about security, if he had any problems with security being open 24 hours a day? The operator looked at me and said "We don't have any problem's, this is Livonia." So that is the kind of thing we like to hear. I found that in many situations that this is a very secure city and we don't look to have any security problems. The site itself, you have already been given the particulars of the site, the N.E. corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt. We are buying a total of 3.89 acres of which we are going to rezone 1.86 acres. That leaves the green area, 2.033,the flood plain area will be undisturbed, not rezoned and remain the way it is. The yellow area is what we are asking to rezone at this time. We have done quite a lot of work already with the site plan. We have worked with the owner of the project and with Walgreen's. We have devised a site plan that works very well with us and Walgreen's. We have worked out many of the engineering issues that you often face. We don't foresee requesting any variances or special exceptions of any kind in order to build our restaurant here. If we get the C-2 there will be no special zoning or variances that we would be seeking. As was pointed out the surrounding area is also commercial, Walgreen's is to our south which is C-1 zoning, Gordon Foods will be to the south and east is C-1,the cemetery to the north is agriculture, On the west side there are a series of auto services and fitness centers and that sort of thing. One of the questions that was asked back in July was what happens if we leave. I have been with the company about three years and I only recall one restaurant in that three year period that we closed and that was in the city of St. Louis. In an area that was probably a very prosperous area at one time about 40 years ago. The neighborhood changed, our business dropped off and it became a 16618 nonprofitable restaurant and when that happens you are forced to close. I don't foresee that happening here. If you have any particular questions regarding the engineering,Bill Roskelly is here or any questions regarding the construction site J. Kaymeir is here. If you have any questions, Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, this is strictly a rezoning issue here tonight. We are not going to go near a site plan, if it passes. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have is about the rezoning. I understand your business, and I'm sure it is a fine business but there are no guarantees. We had a restaurant built here by a big corporation that was open six months and then it closes. Nothing is forever. Tomorrow somebody in the upper echelon can say we are going to close all of our restaurants who knows. We don't know. The problem I have is that once we rezone this to a C-2 classification it is a more intense classification than C-1 which means that something may come in there that I'm not as enthused about as with this one and I can't do anything about it because the property is zoned C-2 and the zoning stays with the property. And that is a worry for me and I have a lot of questions to ask you but it doesn't have as much to do with the rezoning as it does with the 24 hour operation. I don't really have a big problem with a restaurant in this location because we are not really saturated with restaurants in that particular area. But I am worried about a new operation that is new to the City. We don't really know how it is going to go over. I have looked over some of your menus and I think you will be successful here but I do have some reservations about some other things and if those reservations are not taken care of to my satisfaction, I might hold it against your site plan. So I'm caught in the middle here. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, sir do you have any last comments? Mr. Meshberger: I think you have a legitimate concern. A lot of restaurants come and go. We see it all the time. Many of them are not national chains. Even though I see Boston Market nationally has some concerns. I believe they have closed two restaurants here in the Detroit area. We will have a sizeable investment here but the difference between us and others we live with it and we make it work. We do a lot research in determining where we want to go and we try to eliminate a lot of questions up front. That's why we have chosen this location. That is perhaps why Gordon Foods and Walgreen's chose this location. We are not alone. It is a corporate store. It is not a franchisee and so we have the whole corporation behind us to make it successful. We have presently 9 or 10 restaurants in the Michigan area. We just opened a restaurant in Jackson which is somewhat similar to this location except I suppose the population is somewhat less than what we have here. And that has been one of most successful restaurants we have ever opened. It stayed number one or two or three since it has opened in the last few weeks and it opened in very unclement weather. So we feel that Michigan and the Detroit area will be good for us. But here again it is something we live with. If we have a problem, we fix it. 16619 Mr. McCann: Any questions? Mr. LaPine: John, I have a question. I have a problem with the 24 hour operation. If I vote for a rezoning and he doesn't want to back down and I have a piece of property with a C-2 zoning that could be sold by somebody or is this strictly for his operation? Mr.Nagy: No. Once the zoning is approved, it does run with the land, not with the applicant. It stays in place. Mr. LaPine: So you see where I am. I can't vote for the rezoning unless I know certain facts that I can be guaranteed that will happen. Mr. Meshberger: It is my understanding that hours of operation are not a zoning issue. I think that any commercial business in the community can operate 24 hours a day. So we are not unique in that regard. Mr. LaPine: You are asking for a rezoning that I don't have to vote for. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions. Hearing none, I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and denied, it was #1-15-99 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-11-1-21 by Steak N Shake, Inc., requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12 from AG and C-1 to C- 2,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-11-1-21 by denied for the following reasons: 1) Since it is illegal to employ contract zoning in Michigan, once C-2 is established any business can occupy this site that qualifies for C-2 zoning therefore,there is no guarantee that the site will only be developed for the use proposed. 2) That C-2 zoning is very unrestricted enabling a wide range of businesses many of which would not be permitted within the C-1 district. 3) The primary reason for not rezoning to date that piece of ground from C-1 to C-2 is that the petitioner has not established that this area needs uses such as are permitted under C-2 zoning. 4) Approving this one small area of the C-1 district to C-2 is the worst case scenario of spot rezoning possible. 5) That the petitioner represents a potential restaurant that operates 24 hours a day. 16620 6) That C-2 zoning provides for uses which as a rule cause additional traffic congestion. 7) In regard to locating a restaurant on that site there are, by the Planning Department's report dated October 1998, 35 restaurants in operation, not counting snack bars, lounges, carryouts and bake shops would add another 27. 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 was taken with the following results: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann NAYS: Koons ABSENT: Alanskas, Hale Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I am not opposed to your restaurant. If you can fmd a parcel with a C-2 parcel that this restaurant could go on I would have no objections but I do not like the 24 hours. I would have no jurisdiction over that because the property is zoned C-2 but I am willing to vote for the rezoning if you could give me certain commitments that you have other restaurants that are not open 24 hours. If you can't give me that assurance,then I will have to vote against it. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to Council with a denying resolution. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-1-22 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located east of Levan Road between Plymouth Road and Elmira Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 32 from C-2 to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated December 21, 1998 which states "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. Furthermore, as a matter of record, a storm water detention system may be required per Engineering Division Permitting Standards. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. 16621 Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. What we propose is a general subdivision. The homes would consist of 3 bedrooms, 2-1/2 bath homes. One and two story homes. The road will be a concrete road. The road will be a 31'road. Streets maintained by the City. A screen wall to be extended. I'll answer any of your questions. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: There is a wall running along Elmira there now, right? Mr. Soave: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to duplicate that wall north east and then south again or are you going to add to that wall? The wall would be more appropriate with abutting C-2. Mr. Soave: Yes sir. It will be a concrete textured brick wall. Just like is there now. Mr. Piercecchi: Some of it is going north now, right? Mr. Soave: We would be dividing the commercial from the residential. It would be going north then east then it would be going south. Mr. Piercecchi: All right,that's all I wanted to know. Mr. McCann: Is it going to be a T'-turn or a circular drive? Mr. Soave: I think all we will be able to get in there will be a T-tum around. Mrs. Koons: How many homes, Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: 10 homes. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was #1-16-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1999 on Petition 98-11-1-22 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located east of Levan Road between Plymouth Road and Elmira Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 32 from C-2 to R-1,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-11-1-22 be approved subject to the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning provides a compatible zoning district for the subject area; 16622 2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will remove unneeded commercial zoning in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED,that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition98-12-1-23 by Charles P.Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita&Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence? Mr.Nagy: There is a letter dated December 22, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. However,the misalignment of Foch Avenue and the proposed road will be strongly objected to by Wayne County, because of the left turn conflict which will be created. Every effort should be made to align the two roadways. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Paul Maceri of Remerica. 17187 North Laurel Park Dr.,Livonia. First I would like to say I am not the petitioner. There was a problem with John Harris so I am representing both John Harris and Chuck Elmasian who is in the audience. I have been involved with two rezonings in Livonia one of them was on the corner of Ann Arbor Trial and Wayne Road. It is now Arbor Park Subdivision and the other one was more recently which I believe was in 1994 or 1995 and that was Oakcrest Subdivision in the Six Mile and Middlebelt area. In fact the dimensions of this project are almost the exact same as the Oakcrest project. What we are looking at here Western Golf Estates is to the far west. Anyway the properties behind this are all open and my understanding was that the master plan for Livonia called for this to be developed as one family residential and this is exactly what we propose to do here. 16623 Mr. McCann: Basically you want to put a street down there? Mr. Maceri: Yes, we understand about the misalignment of the roads. We don't know what we can do about that but we are willing to listen to any suggestions. The way the property sits on Five Mile and Foch, Foch is slightly to the right where the right-of- way would be. We do understand that and again we are open to suggestions as to how we can make that easier. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Have you tried to get Lot E l? Mr. Maceri: It would be D1 and Cl. We have also talked with the owners of El and some of the property owners to the south behind that property also. We are in discussions with them. Basically what we wanted to do was to make sure we could get the rezoning because that would directly affect what we are able to offer on this property. Mr. Piercecchi: It would be much easier to make a decision if we knew where that 2.27 acres which is adjacent to Dl. What the status is? Mr. Maceri; We have an offer on the table. Basically John wanted to wait until we got through this meeting to see what objections there were, if any, towards this. We have talked to those people and will continue to talk to them Mr. Piercecchi: When do you think you would have a fmal resolution for obtaining more property? We Commissioners, in investigating this property, you know rezoning R-2 would be a better average of the densities in that area rather than zoning of R- 1. So we would like for you to consider that too. Mr. Maceri: We would be happy to take a second look at that. We actually didn't look at that. Both of the other projects that I mentioned were in an almost identical setting where they were surrounded by a R-1 setting and what we are looking at here because of the cost of in fill projects in Livonia, the cost of acquiring the land, we acquired two pieces of that property after the rezoning had gone through. I guess what it did was lend a sense of urgency to the negotiations. We have some people that want to sell. Some people are not sure. I agree with you, we would love to be able to acquire adjacent property. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think you could negotiate this thing and get it finalized within the next two or three weeks? Mr. Maceri: All I say is that talks are continuing. I don't want to say something now that I can't deliver later on because obviously the sellers are going to have a lot to say. You know how that goes. Mr. Piercecchi: It doesn't seem right to have that one lot hanging there. 16624 Mr. Maceri: I agree with you. We would like to acquire that. The whole idea with this was to make sure how many lots we could put on that property and that directly affects what we are doing. We had engineers draw up a preliminary plan based on a R-1 zoning. For instance if we went to the R-2 zoning it really throws off our numbers because what it means is we probably lose two lots,maybe more, on that plan you have in front of you. Mr. Piercecchi: The point is whether to rezone it R-1 or R-2. We would have a better handle on it if you could come back, at least that is how I feel, I don't know how the other commissioners feel. Mr. McCann: Do you have any more questions? Mr. Maceri: If it is the desire of the commission for us to come back, we will come back. Like I say,the way some things develop and the way they developed at least at Oakcrest I believe in 1994 we acquired that property after the Planning Commission had given their preliminary approval for the rezoning. We knew exactly how we could balance our numbers and what offers we could make at that point. Mr. LaPine: John, if we went to R-2 and eliminated two lots in the back, is there any way this project could be moved back so we could get that road aligned. That's my big concern. I don't like people driving coming out of these streets that are not going to be lined up. Mr. Nagy: Sure there is a way to affect realignment of the road so as to provide continuity of development between this parcel and parcels to the south to try to open up that area as well for future development and also by moving the road we could consider to bring the road to the westerly edge of the site could provide some reasonable development for that left over piece. Yes it could be reconsidered, or re-thought. Mr. Maceri: If I could make one quick point. We had a couple of scenarios other than the one you have in front of you drawn up and it involved acquiring adjacent parcels to the south. What we were trying to do was hook up with Howell which runs right across so what we could then have one ingress and one egress. One coming off of Five Mile and one coming off of Cavell also. That was some of our thinking there and we have looked at some hypothetical of that we could acquire the property and have the plans drawn. We have worked in that regards and have spent a lot of money and having engineering plans drawn with the anticipation that we will be able to acquire this property. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is now in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #1-17-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-12-1-23 by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa 16625 Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-1,the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 98-12-1-23 to February 9, 1999. FURTHER RESOLVED,that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Nagy left the Planning Commission meeting at this time. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-1-1 by Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-811. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence for this. Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated December 29, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Legal Descriptions provided by William L. Roskelly, R.L.S. are acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposed zoning changes and sees no discrepancies in the right-of-way dedication. However, it should be noted,the U.S. Department has designated a substantial portion of the property as forested wetlands. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated January 26, 1999 from Colleen Siembor which states: "To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in support of Phoenix Land Development's proposed project on Plymouth Road to show our support of their project." She shows her address as 32109 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Cardwell Florist. That is the extent of the correspondence addressed to the Planning Department. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Steve Schafer,Phoenix Land Corporation, 32000 Northwestern Hwy., Farmington Hills. We are very excited to be here tonight. We have had an opportunity to look at this property now for about three months and we have met with several of the neighborhood groups as well as a couple of meetings at PRDA. In this package I have included a motion from PRDA in support of the concept we are trying to move forward here tonight. We have also have had an opportunity to meet with some of the City officials and what we are proposing is quite unique. There is going to be a lot discussions we will be having in the future. Basically in the beginning of the package is a rezoning exhibit of what we are proposing to 16626 rezone. The current zoning there is about 14.4 acres of C-2 and 7 acres of M-1. We are seeking to take 12.1 acres which will be all M-1 property and a portion of the C-2 property and rezone that to R-811. Obviously there is a high rise 8-story designation. In our early on discussions with the City we proposed to model this development to a similar development we've done in Dearborn called West Village. Actually the density on that project was much more extreme. It is in a town down area. There weren't parking requirements to satisfy but here in Livonia there are a lot of requirements we have to satisfy and we intend to do that. The ordinance allows for a planned residential development. It would be our intention to go forward with this once the zoning was approved to go through that process to give the City certain assurances as to the type of buildings, materials,the quality we represent of a product in Dearborn that has been very very successful. We've got a list of about 70 people already who have called from the news articles and people that we have spoken with that are interested in this type of living. It's a very urban type of housing. We think the synergy that the Plymouth Road corridor offers this would be a great compliment to that. That has taken many many years to develop and we think adding roof tops to this area would be a great benefit to the merchants, as well as offer a different type of housing. Something that is very pedestrian friendly and pedestrian oriented. Actually we have submitted to the City plans to come in front of you for the "specialty retail" area of the site and we will be coming in front of you in about three or four weeks to discuss that portion of the project and you will see that I have furnished you with plans of the overall concept. The residential works very well with the commercial and obviously there is going to a lot of questions that will be coming up and there will be a long involved site plan process to go through with you. And I think a lot of those questions will be answered during that process and whatever I can do this evening certainly would help. We have chartered out our approval process on this project and there is essentially two separate approvals that will be going on simultaneously, one will be this rezoning that we are asking for tonight and for the site plan negotiation of our planned residential development, with the commercial site plan which will be in front of you in about 30 days. It is important that we keep these two approvals together as much as possible so that when we do start construction everything is kicked off properly. So we have really tried to do homework as to what we are proposing here. I have also included in the package some elevations of West Village, the project that we have modeled the residential after. Some press releases and information about the company as well as some letters from the City of Dearborn where we just completed a similar mixed uses type project and some other things that we are doing, as well as floor plans of the units. I would like to get into a couple of other quick issues. Mr. McCann: Please keep in mind that this is only in relation to the rezoning of the rear portion tonight. Mr. Schafer: I think one of the issues that comes up from the groups was traffic and traffic is a very important issue and this is a residential development that will have some density to and we have had an opportunity to draw up an analysis for your information. The existing zoning so this doesn't harm the health, safety,well fare 16627 of the community and we are not putting burdens on the community that would be unreasonable in the rezoning. The existing zoning would generate approximately 7100 trips a day that would allow for approximately 155,000 sq. ft. of retail that is currently allowed on the property with 120,000 sq. ft. of M-1 industrial and that would be the traffic generation number. Our particular project that we are proposing at this point has about 240 units and one of the other concerns that came up, I'll address in a moment. We are only proposing to put up approximately 73,200 sq. ft. of retail which would be a over a 50%reduction with this rezoning. You are looking at a traffic generation of about 4300 cars. Obviously, the Meijer's project never went through but just for information sake that was about 9900 trips per day that would have been generated. From a stand point of additional trips and traffic I think, this wouldn't be something that wouldn't be extreme on an already busy intersection. I have given you a detailed report on that for your further review. And one of the last things I wanted to show is a tax analysis. This is a PRDA district there are substantial dollars that would be captured by the PRDA and invested back into this corridor. The existing zoning that we would be looking at which would be the M-1 and the commercial if it were built now would generate about$145,000 per year versus our proposed project which would generate about $660,000 per year and that would be a substantial amount of revenue for the PRDA to capture that would be put back into that corridor. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Mr. Piercecchi: Al, this is the first planned neighborhood development that has ever come through us, isn't it? Mr. Nowak: I believe so. I don't recall any others. Mr. Piercecchi: He is fully aware that with 240 units in R-8 you would really need about 18 acres in order to satisfy 240 units, 160 is all they qualify under R-8. I want to know just how much variance does a planned neighborhood development have in reference to let's say an R-8? Mr. Nowak: First, let me explain, on a conventional site plan approval process the method of determining density in R-8 is based on the height they are proposing. For a three story building they are allowed 13.2 units per acres which times 12.01 acres would yield 160 units. Under Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance which is the special waiver use standards for planned residential developments and planned general developments,the density then is based on zoning district. They are asking for R-8II zoning district which allows 20 units per acre. Still 20 units per acres times 12.01 yields 240. That's how they come up with 240. With a waiver you could have the 240 units based on R-8II zoning classification. Mr. Piercecchi: That's if they went higher though. Mr.Nowak: It would still be in three story buildings. It's based on the zoning district that they are requesting, not the height of the building. Mr. McCann: Is there a lesser restriction say if we went to an R-81 ? 16628 Mr. Nowak: That would result in a lower the number of units. Mr. McCann: What would that lower it to? Mr.Nowak: It would lower the units to approximately 200. Mr. McCann: O.K. And that is what we are considering tonight is the zoning. What is proper zoning for that area. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Schafer, I don't know if this question is for you or Mr. Roskelly, but I would like to know more about the wetland. Mr. Schafer: There is a lot of history we have been able to find on the property. There has been activity on this property back into the 80's where permits have been applied for and granted from DEQ. You may recall there was a McDonald's Restaurant,there was a prior Meijer's look at the property and early on last year Meijer's did extensive work and filed for an application. We have since been able to have our meetings with DEQ on the current proposal and those actually took place last week. Our intention is that there is going to have to be a mitigation here if this is going to be allowed and the wetland taken. It would be our preference to relocate them in the community. We have talked to the community about some alternative sites that may be available for us to do such a mitigation. There are some other mitigation opportunities through Wayne County but it would be our preference it keep them here in Livonia. The issue with DEQ was that this wetland is fairly low quality. It you looked at this back in the 80's when we looked at the applications there was a drain that used to connect to this property. And then when you look at subsequent development that industrial portion as well as the mini-storage that hydrology was essentially cut off. If you had an opportunity to walk through there earlier this year before all the snow fell and DEQ had had a walk through early on with Meijer's and it was very dry. It isn't sustained for very long periods with water and a lot of that hydrology has since been cut off. There is a stand of trees there but if you go and look at the stand it is of marginal quality. You are talking a lot poplars, not a lot of maples, hickories. Mrs. Koons: Of the 21.4 acres how many of it is designated wetlands? Mr. Schafer: Approximately 7 acres of it. Mrs. Koons: And you are proposing any wetland retention? Mr. Schafer: About 10 acres replaced as mitigation. Unidenfled: Would it eliminate all the wetlands? Mr. Schafer: Yes. The DEQ has indicated there was some earlier comments when we had the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Council that maybe PRDA would set aside a portion of that to try to preserve that. Although when we met 16629 with DEQ last week they would not support taking and leaving such a smaller portion of a wetland that has been so compromised that if we were going to do a mitigation taking, file our application and replace the wetlands somewhere else. It's on a road that has a very busy corridor. Development has occurred all around the site. At one time there was better hydrology but it is very marginal now and I think DEQ recognizes that although a mitigation is a mitigation and a wetland is a wetland. The mitigation amount is going to be what is required. It is at least a 1- 1/2 to 1 if not more. We are hopeful that we'll end up with a mitigation.... Mrs. Koons: 1-1/2 to 1 property exchange? Mr. Schafer: For every acre that you eliminate you have to replace it somewhere else 1-1/2 times. Mrs. Koons: Where is the somewhere else? Legally where, in the county? Mr. Schafer: There are a couple of sites in Livonia. Mrs. Koons: But where legally does it have to be? Mr. Schafer: Within the watershed. It has to be within a reasonable distance of the sub- watershed. Mr. LaPine: Can this project be developed if the wetland stayed there? Mr. Schafer: Not economically. I believe you have a right to mitigate. We have a right to ask for that determination. Mr. LaPine: I understand. Mr. Schafer: I think what we are doing on this corner is called alternative analysis That is part of our permit. Is there another piece of property that we could do the same type development and save this. If there was another such site on this corridor,they would say maybe you should take a look and let's try to leave this for right now. Mr. LaPine: I have a real problem with the 240 units. If we went to the R-8I where you could have somewhere around 200 units or 205 units. If the wetlands stayed could still build the 200 units there? Mr. Schafer: No,you could probably build half of that. Mr. LaPine: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Any other questions, anything else? Is there anything you want to add? Mr. Schafer: I would like to add, we are talking 240 units. We have been very open, we've shown you our concept and where we want to go with this and I don't know if it will end up at 240. We've met with individuals as a segment of the market here in Livonia that is older that has some concerns. We've had several meetings with a 16630 couple of those groups and we are trying to modify some of these plans to be a little bit more user friendly and I think that is going to drop some of our density on the project. But again, what is the problem with the density. It typically is traffic and I think we have demonstrated that the traffic will be substantially less than what the current zoning contemplates. Close proximity living all of that I think comes along with the village effect. Hopefully we will have a good balance. It is really economics. We're trying to make this project happen on a very expensive piece of land and a commercially zoned area. You know what these big retailers are paying. We just thought we had a little better idea than Meijer's. Thrifty acres had last time. Again we will have a lot of opportunities to discuss it. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: The other week when we talked about this with Council, you talked about 73,000 sq. ft. of commercial. Does that 73,000 sq. ft. include the two restaurants and the bank? Mr. Schafer: Yes, it would include six buildings. Mr. LaPine: The Schostak letter you gave us talks about 50,000 sq. ft. but then he talks about the two free standing buildings. Mr. Schafer: Right. Mr. LaPine: So the three of them come up to the 73,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Schafer: Right. Mr. LaPine: Also in his letter he talks about the project in common uses store areas as small as 1500 sq. ft. up to big box. When they talk about a box,that scares me. Mr. Schafer; I think that was poor terminology on their part. It's not a box. Boxes are typically 60,000 sq. ft. or more. I think it was just a retail terminology in the industry they use. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, you have a comment? Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft I represent Phoenix Land Development as engineer. I suspect that this Planning Commission is having a problem with this R-8II zoning. Realizing you cannot zone contingent on a site plan. Well one can speculate that we will rezone and say they will put up an eight story building. I suggest to assure you in the event you are entertaining this I am certain the land developers would put a restriction in the deed that states no building will be in excess of three stories. To address the wetlands, that wetlands was created by the fact that it was a sheet runoff from the existing Burns Theater as well as some of the industrial property to the north. At this time it is a very low quality wetlands. It's not within 500 feet of an open stream but it is over five acres. I suggest it would do the city well if it could be added 1-1/2 times in another area in the near vicinity contiguous to existing wetlands. Thank you. 16631 Mr. McCann; I am going to open this up to the public and take some questions from the public. Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn. I wish that you would deny this petition based on the existence of the forested wetlands that exist there. It is one of the few remaining oasis of natural of habitat in that part of town. I won't argue the fact that it is a alleged low quality wetland but it is a forested wetland. It would be harder to mitigate. There is not a successful mitigation of forested wetland. To mitigate that site within the subwatershed would be very difficult because we just don't have the land that would accommodate that kind of development. Generally forested wetlands call for a higher ratio 1-1/2 to 2 because of their poor success rates. I would like to say that it would be a shame to lose more of our natural habitat. It does add a certain dimension to that neighbor. It would be nice if that area could be developed with some kind of zoning for houses or condominiums that would incorporate such a natural feature not destroy such a natural feature. In times when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to improve our water quality within the Rouge watershed, I find disappointing to always see this drive to have more hard surface which would be more hard surface runoff. What we are doing is we are overpacking Livonia with these developments, I would like to some lesser density development in that area and accommodate some of our natural features in these developments. Thank you. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Craig, of the seven acres, is it all low quality? Mr. Craig: I wouldn't say it is low quality. The very fact that it has existed there for as long as I have known it for over 25 years. It is there. It exists, the hydrology, I'm not a specialist. I have walked the area, I have taken my videos and you do not see it in a decline. It has existed almost the same for the last 20 years. It has existed in a continuum there. Mrs. Koons: Is the seven acres pretty much consistent? Mr. Craig: The fact that the surrounding area is pretty much boxed in on two sides by a parking lot and a building and the rest is mowed maintained lawn. It would be interesting if it was allowed to expand on its own to incorporate more property. I am glad it was recognized as being more than five acres which would give it some kind of regulated special concern. You always hate to see these sites designated 4.97 by some wetland consultant. But it exists and it does have water and it does have creatures that live there. It would be nice if it were a higher quality but it isn't Disney land. Mr. McCann; Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mike McGee, 11041 Arden in Livonia in Rosedale Gardens. I am the president of Rosedale Gardens Association. Our association comprises about 600 +homes and somewhere around 1600 residents. I am here this evening on behalf of our Board of Directors to speak in favor of the rezoning specifically and to talk favorable, in general, about the project. I know the Commission is very familiar with this 16632 history of this particular parcel and you know it has been matter of great interest in our neighborhood. For that reason we invited Mr. Schafer to come to our board meeting last Monday night and tell us what he had in mind for this site. I think it is fair to say in that meeting and other meetings have been had with residents in that neighborhood and residents in and around other neighborhoods,there is a lot of excitement for this proposal. I think people have a general consensus that this is one of the highest quality proposals that we have seen not only for that parcel but Plymouth Road generally in quite some time. What Mr. Schafer described to us as he mentioned here tonight is in essence the West Village development in the city of Dearborn you have probably gone to see it as have we. It is a very nice development. It is a nice combination of high quality condominium/townhouse development with an appropriate amount of light retail that supports what the residential is, coffee shops, bagel shops , he has the bread maker over there,that sort of thing. That is what Mr. Schafer has said he wants to bring to this corner and we are very excited to have him bring something like that to that corner. I know we are here to talk about zoning and I made the prior comments just so you know where we are as an association as a neighborhood. We realize this process is going to go on for awhile and we know how that works. But at a big picture level we like this. Mr. Schafer has mentioned how many people have signed up. We had two people at the board meeting sign up right after the board meeting. We have a couple of people who are looking to stay in the area but would like something less intense than keeping up a single family home they are very interested in this type of home. We wanted you to be aware of that. On the zoning, one thought we talked about in our board meeting and that we would leave with the Commission,the notion of the planned residential development or planned urban development,I'm not sure what our ordinance calls it, suggests to us that there is a lot of ability for the Commission and later on the Council to exercise a lot of control over what will go there. As we understand in essence, if this rezoning goes through, as a result of this process that there will a contract between the City and the developer and that it is something you don't get to do all the time. So that is something that affords a great deal of assurance we think that in the long run we will get what has been promised. I don't have anything else to say this evening but I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. McCann: Any questions? Thank you Mr. McGee. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Tom Wazniak, 11407 Cranston. And also a resident of Rosedale Gardens. I have been a homeowner and active member of the homeowners association for a number of years. So I think it is fair to say a lot of people have my phone number memorized. We have already published in our newsletter a significant amount of information that has been provided by Phoenix Land Development about this. And as Mike McGee has said people are very excited about this. Usually the phone calls you get are of a negative nature and we have not gotten any of those. We have received positive comments A lot of calls from people who are asking how they can get on a list or get their parents on a list in order to become part of this development. From what Mr. Schafaer has told us we feel very comfortable with this 16633 development and we feel that what he has presented to us is a fair and honest approach. I have not heard a single negative comment about this development. Most residents that we have talked to are very excited to see this development go forward. Tim Lafferty, 9927 Berwick. I am the vice president to Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association. I am here as Mike McGee and Tom Knawasik are in support of this development. We all feel very comfortable with Mr. Schafer and his plans and kind of speaking from the younger generation of Rosedale which is a much older community, I think it is one of Livonia's oldest communities and I have not heard any negative comments from the neighbors and I do get a lot of calls. We are in support of this. Thank you. Darrell Nakonezny, 9162 Hubbard, also a resident of Old Rosedale Gardens. I also would like to speak in favor of this project. The rezoning and the project that goes with it. I really believe this is a unique opportunity for the south end of Livonia for our area in that we would not just have occupant in that area bur residents who have a commitment to our community. Again we have been very pleased with everything we have seen on the development and support it fully. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no one, sir, is there any additional comments you would like to add? Mr. Schafer: I just wanted to add this that this is a community that we built in about six years ago and it is a community that we wanted to come back to. We built quality homes when we were here and we will build a quality project if this is something we can see our way through. Mr. Roskelly: I think at this time we have a concern of wetlands. We have a concern of density but tonight I believe we are looking at land use and zoning and certainly all of these items will have to come to a head at later meetings. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #1-18-99 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999,on Petition 99-1-1-1 by Phoenix Land Development requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-8II,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-1-1-1 be approved for a change of zoning to the R-8I classification(rather than R-8H) for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning to the R-8I district is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 16634 2) That the proposed change of zoning to the R-8I district will more readily provide for the redevelopment of the subject property; 3) That the proposed change of zoning to the R-8I district will promote a comprehensive development plan for the subject property; 4) That the proposed change of zoning to the R-8I district represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning; 5) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a multiple family type of living experience for those persons who desire an alternative to the single family residence; and 6) That the proposed change of zoning will result in a decrease in the amount of C-2 zoning in an area already well served with a variety of commercial uses. With respect to this petition, to rezone to the R-811 district,the Planning Commission recommends against the rezoning for the following reasons: 1) That the R-8II classification would allow greater density and building heights than would be appropriate for the area; and 2) That the intensity of use as allowed under the provisions of the R-8II zoning classification would overburden the site. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann: This petition will go on to Council with an approving for an R-8I. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-28 by Busch's Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant with more than 30 seats within Busch's Marketplace in Newburgh Plaza located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr.Nowak: We have a letter dated December 4, 1998,which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant within a grocery store located on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. There is a letter dated December 21, 1998, 16635 which states: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer of the Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated December 21, 198, which states: "Pursuant to your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, and the following approximate legal description should be used in connection therewith: Part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, beginning S. 89°35'20" E., 860 feet;thence S. 0°24'40" W., 360 feet from the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17;proceeding thence S. 0°24'40" West, 270 feet;thence S. 89°35'20" E., 270 feet;thence N. 0°24'40" E., 270 feet;thence N. 89°35'20" W., 270 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? This is a public hearing and I don't see the petitioner here this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was: #1-19-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999,on Petition 98-11-2-28 by Busch's, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant with more than 30 seats within Busch's Marketplace in Newburgh Plaza located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section!7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-11-2-28 be approved subject to a limitation ion the number of customer seats not to exceed a total of 56 for the following reasons: 1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the use as proposed is a logical adjunct to the main use of the subject building. 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-29 by Stuart Frankel on behalf of Newburgh Plaza requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within the Newburgh Plaza(LaShish Restaurant) located on 16636 the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann; Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated December 15, 1998 which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate full service restaurant within Newburgh Plaza on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. There is a letter dated December 21, 1998 which states: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer with the Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated December 22, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections tot he proposal, and the following approximate legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17, T. 1S.,R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,Michigan; described as beginning S. 89°35'20" East along the North line of Section 17, 307 feet;thence S. 00°24'40" West 477 feet from the North West corner of Section 17;proceeding thence S. 89°35'20" East, 55 feet; thence S. 00°24'40" West 140 feet;thence N. 89°35'20" West, 55 feet;thence N. 00°24'40" East, 140 feet to the point of beginning. We trust this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Rod, West Bloomfield. As everyone knows Newburgh Plaza has gone through a great transformation in the last 12 to 18 months. In 1998 we went through a significant physical transformation expanding the center and remodeling the center and I hope you are as pleased with the physical appearance of the center as we are. We've gotten very positive comments from what from what we did architecturally providing the masonry and signage and we are very pleased with the new Newburgh Plaza. The second phase of our transformation is the merchandising of the shopping center and which we started in 1998 and we have made significant in-roads to improve what we had, the addition of the Busch's, the addition of the triple A, the relocation and expansion of the Rite Aid, the just opening of Panera Bread. We are very fortunate to have as a potential tenant to the City of Livonia, the LaShish Restaurant which is an authentic Mideastern restaurant which will occupy 7700 sq. ft. in the space previously occupied by Rite Aid before they located to the western end of the shopping center. With me tonight is Talal who is the owner of the LaShish restaurants. He will be happy to answer any questions as relates to the physical operation of the restaurant and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the physical operation of the 16637 L shopping center or any questions as relates to the shopping center. We think this is a wonderful addition to the City of Livonia, a wonderful addition to the Newburgh Plaza and we hope you are as enthusiastic about it as we are. Do you have specific questions of me or would you like to have Talal make his presentation and then ask us questions? Mr. McCann: Why don't we do that. Talal Chahine, President of LaShish, 13250 Rotunda Drive, Dearborn, Mi. I don't know about a representation here but I do have a couple of things to share with you. We are over 10 years if you are kind enough to permit us to operate within your wonderful community that will be our number 8 store. We would look forward to your comments and recommendations. We are family oriented. Quality value and I hope some of you, if not all of you, have visited some of our restaurants and if not, I would like to dearly extend an invitation to you to attend one of our locations. If I can be assistance in answering your questions or concerns please go right ahead. Mr. Frankel: When I began talking to Talal about locating a LaShish Restaurant in the Newburgh Plaza, I discussed this with the restaurant operators within the shopping center and I have submitted and it was not part of the correspondence you read but there are letters on file from both Wing Yee, Elias Brothers and Kirby's Coney 1 Island recommending the addition of LaShish to the shopping center and encouraging it to be part of the shopping center and they find it would be no competition at all. They encourage it because they think the more quality restaurants we bring to the shopping center, will not only enhance their business, but the business of the shopping center Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I have been to your facility there in Dearborn near the Phoenix project near Monroe. What is the size of that restaurant compared to this one. Mr. Chahine: That facility is almost 11000 sq. ft. Mr. LaPine The new one you built in Farmington Hills, what is that in comparable size to this one? Mr. Chahine: Farmington Hills, I believe is about 5500 sq. ft. The last one we opened in West Bloomfield is 7400 sq. ft. and that one is almost two months old. Mr. LaPine: The one in Dearborn, you don't have a liquor license at that location? Mr. Chahine: Yes sir,we have a liquor license in all of our facilities except the small location in east Dearborn. Everywhere else there is a liquor license. Mr. LaPine; Mr. Frankel, I understand you've got letters from the restaurant tenants and they indicated to me that there is a parking problem there with this large of a restaurant. Have they shared that with you? 16638 Mr. Frankel: No,they did not share that with me but let's discuss that. This will be the only restaurant located west of the center drive. All of the other restaurants are located east of the center drive. Panera Bread is a breakfast, lunch facility principlely closes right after 7:00/7:30. They do about 90%of their business before 4:00 p.m. Wing Yee does not open for breakfast and does a significant lunch and dinner business. But his facility is also located east of the center drive. Kirby's Coney Island is principally a breakfast and lunch business and does a less significant portion of their business at dinner. The LaShish would be the only business open on the west side of the center drive adjacent to the Triple A facility which closes at 5:00 Monday through Friday and half a day on Saturday. Immediately adjacent to the Triple A facility is the new Rite Aid facility which with their new drive-in facility, facilitates people not parking but using the driving-thru facility. Only about 10 to 12 cars are in that parking lot attributed to the Rite Aid. LaShish does about 75%to 80%of their business after 5:00 P.M. for dinner. It does some lunch business but that is not its principle business. The lunch business when the rest of the retailers would be open really comes in groups,three or four people will get in a car and go together. We think from a parking standpoint there will not be a problem because a significant portion of his business will be after 5:00 p.m. when the biggest user of the parking lot in the west side will not be open on Saturdays and not open on Sundays, Triple A. Mr. LaPine: How late are open in the evening? Mr. Chahine: Typically we open until 11:00 except Friday and Saturday we normally stay open until midnight. Mr. LaPine: So you are open six days a week? Mr. Chahine: No we are open 7 days a week. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Frankel says you don't do a big luncheon. The one in Dearborn, every time I went there I had to wait. Mr. Chahine: I hope we can achieve that in Livonia. The one in Dearborn is really in the back yard of the major engineering center of the Ford Motor Company. I hope and pray that we have a significant lunch business. Mr. LaPine: The times that I have been there,there are not as many mideast people there as there are Americans. Mr. Chahine: I agree with you. Mr. McCann: I am a big fan of Wing Yee's and have eaten there since I was a little kid and since I park there all the time I park behind the bank which is on the west side of center drive. Wing Yee's is on the west side of center drive. Although I don't see a parking problem, I'm just trying to get it straight. Wing Yee's is west of the center drive, isn't it? 16639 Mr. Frankel: The center drive comes really where the mini-mall is and that is the first door east of the mini-mall. Mrs. Koons: Center drive isn't really center. It doesn't feel like it is really center. Mr. McCann: No. Whenever I park there I park west of center drive. That really isn't that important. I'll go the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: Before I make a motion I want to compliment Mr. Frankel on what a magnificent job you did there. I hope Busch's can be a great adjunct. We are going to limit it to 237 seats. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #1-20-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-11-2-29 by Stuart Frankel, on behalf of Newburgh Plaza, requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant, LaShish Restaurant, proposed to occupy a specified unit (as delineated in the legal description approval by the Engineering Division) within the Newburgh Plaza located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-11-2-29 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats not to exceed a total of 237 for the following reasons: 1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Mrs. Koons: Just a comment on the parking situation since I also visit the Newburgh P1a7a quite often. I think you have had a year of horrific parking with your construction followed by a couple of weeks of a large amount of snow and as I have been there recently, it seems a lot better. 16641 Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Lapin, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #1-21-99 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-12-2-30 by Buca, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection with a proposed restaurant to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the I-275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-12-2-30 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h)of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council for the following reasons: 1) that the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;and 3) That the proposed use is a normal part of the operation of the proposed restaurant to be constructed on the subject site. 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-2-31 by Pastor Kenneth MacLeod, on behalf of Presbyterian Free Church, requesting waiver use approval to construct a new church sanctuary on property located on the south side of Curtis Road between Melvin and Doris Avenues in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr.Nowak: There is a letter dated December 21, 1998 which states: "In response to the captioned petition,the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." It is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer of the Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated December 22, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The following legal description should be used to describe the parcel on the proposed site plan: The East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the North East 1/4 of the North West 1/4 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, T. 1S.,R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan; except the North 43 feet thereof. The developer may be required to obtain a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the new storm sewer construction, proposed within the influence of the Tarabusi Drain. 16640 Mr. Frankel: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-2-30 by Buca, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize A Class C license in connection with a proposed restaurant to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the I-275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated December 21, 1998,which states: "Pursuant to your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated January 7, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request of December 18, 1998,the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The proposed location for the Buca di Beppo Restaurant is within 1000 feet of another license establishment and will require that the City Council waive the 1000 foot requirement. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann; Is the petitioner here? Scott Edwards,Plunket & Cooney, 505 N. Woodward, Bloomfield Hills. I am here representing Buca tonight. What we are doing is catching up with our waiver use for our liquor license. We have already received approval for the site plan, the building through the Planning Commission and City Council. We received the permit for the clearing for the foundation through City Council. At this point through an omission was made in trying to get this going through the process together and we are trying to catch up with the liquor license. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Edwards, it is my recollection that Buca is a dinner only? Mr. Edwards: No. It also has a lunch menu. I know they have requested a difference in hours of operation on Sunday. I anticipate they are also going to have lunch also. Mr. LaPine: Seeing as we don't have any liquor licenses available in the City, are you buying a license from another location and moving it here? Mr. Edwards: Exactly, we are buying a license in escrow from Canton and also requesting that the Liquor Commission reclassify it as a full Class C License. 16642 We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated January 7, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request of December 19,1998,the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The site plan does not indicate if the parking spaces are to be double striped or what type of surface the parking area will be. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. We have a letter dated January 14,1999, which states: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a new church sanctuary on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? John M. McMillan, 17514 Country Club Drive, Livonia I represent the applicant the Presbyterian Free Church. The applicant for the approval of the Board to construct a new church sanctuary on the property located on the south side of Curtis Road between Melvin and Doris in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11. Pastor MacLeod is in the audience tonight along with the architect that has helped us to develop this project. David Hawkins and members of the congregation of the Presbyterian Free Church. We are prepared to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. McCann: Maybe it would be helpful Scott if we were to put that up on the board to show the audience as well as ourselves the proposed church. Is the architect here? David Hawkins, Architect for the church. Here is the site which is 614 feet by 164 feet. Curtis Avenue is here. The existing structure is here and we are proposing a new structure in this area and this structure is about 2100 sq. ft. We are proposing a new sanctuary of about 3,100 sq. ft. The Tarabusi Drain is in this area about here and the new church and this entire area from Curtis back to about this line is approximately 15 feet higher than to the south. The area to the south is a flood plain area but we are not impinging on that in any way. About two years ago there was a very decrepit house here which has since been removed. The only buildings on the site now are the present sanctuary which we hope to use in the future for other purposes. The plan consists of the sanctuary with a church office, coat room, nursery, library and bathrooms. The nursery area is for about 12 to 15 children. Which is very important to the continuing growth and maintenance of any church facility. Without bringing your families along, churches slowly die. The plan indicates that the new church sanctuary would have seating for 150 people, which would be an increase of 50 over the existing 100 person capacity in the existing church. I have brought with me a colored rendering of the entrance of the church which is off of Curtis and back of the parking area. The present parking area is asphalt paved. We would be making some modifications to accommodate the new building. Whatever is required and in addition we will do the double striping. This is a proposed elevation of the church as you approach it from Curtis Avenue. The 16643 parking is in front of the church about 150 feet or more back from Curtis Avenue so it is not right at the front of the street. Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Could you tell us what type of materials you are going to use on the building. It shows on the plans that you are going to use vinyl siding. When I went out and looked at the old church has a substantial amount of brick on it. Can we get more brick on this? Mr. Hawkins: We had proposed vinyl siding and through discussions with the Planning Department office we thought perhaps we could add some brick to the building and we have proposed in this scheme that we could add some brick at the corners all the way around the building and on either side of the entrance. Mr. LaPine: When you say corners are you saying about three feet? Mr. Hawkins: Approximately four feet at the corners to try and pull the building in and then asphalt singles or fiber glass would be the roofing materials. Mr. LaPine: Is that the maximum amount of brick you can put on this? Mr. Hawkins: Well, we have some severe budget problems which we are trying to address and in using something like vinyl siding, which we feel would be attractive on this building, vinyl siding is approximately $15.00 a square foot and brick is about $45.00 a square foot. We are looking at a 10% across the board increase of the whole project just to add the brick. It is a difficult problem for us. Mr. LaPine: The existing building, where you now hold your services in there when that is empty and everything moves into the sanctuary, what is this building going to be used for? Mr. Hawkins That will actually be used for assembly purposes and so on. If we should have suppers and things like that. Mr. LaPine: How many members do you have in your congregation now? Mr. McMillan:We have approximately 60 families. It is a very small congregation. We are hoping to grow but it is a small group of people. Mr. LaPine: That is the point I was going to bring us next. You are only showing 51 parking spaces. But you are required to have one for every three people that are going to church. So 50 is about what you need. But if you grow any more have you got room that you can expand your parking? Mr. Hawkins: I believe we could expand the parking some but bear in mind that we now have about 115 or so seats or 120 seats and this is actually a 30 seat growth. Which is a 25%. 16644 Mr. LaPine: How many parking spaces do you have now? Mr. Hawkins: We have about 50 right now. Mr. LaPine: Do you ever have any problem parking? Mr. McMillan: No problems. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: One of the questions I have concerns the amount of brick. The front of the buildings should be all brick with a 4 foot wrap around the bottom of the building. Mr. Hawkins: That's a little tricky actually. Mechanically that's not the easiest thing to do. Because you get water proofing requirements half the way down and you would to build a wall so the siding overlaps the brick or you have a waterproofing flashing problem about half way down the building. I am not generally in favor of just a ban of brick because of the flashing problem. Mr. McCann: Al, what is it we call the four foot.... Mr. Nowak: Wainscot. Mr. McCann: Yes, wainscot. Because of the durability, I am sure the parishioners want this church to be around for a long time. I don't know if there is any kind of loan process or whether they have to come up with the money up front but it pays for itself over time. Mr. Hawkins: It is a budget problem and as an architect I would defer to the church's council. Mr. McCann; Do you understand that? Mr. McMillan: We do understand that and appreciate your concern for that. The cost would be an additional$25,000 on top of an already difficult program that we have to put this project together. So adding 10%to the cost of the project would consitute a present hardship for a small group of people. We were hoping that the cost could be kept closer to our original projection in order to go through with the project. Mr. Piercecchi: What percent brick were you planning with the vinyl? Mr. Hawkins: Approximately 8%to 10% brick. Mr. Piercecci: That's all just 8%to 10%brick? Mr. Hawkins: In what we have here with this and with the entrance and on the corners and this would continue on the back side. In other words,the building would be one thing the same character all the way around. It would have something less suitable 16645 perhaps on the back. As an architect I would like to see the same thing all the way around. Mr. Piercecchi: It is a ranch style of building, it is only single story and we do have a policy on ranch homes and it is different from a church. But our policy on a ranch home is 80% brick. You can have it above it but I don't see where that would be problem with all those windows. Mr. Hawkins: 80%brick would be approximately $22,000 to $25,000 more than we have presently put into our budget. Mr. Piercecchi: We all do that. We budget one way, but you know how that goes. Mr. Hawkins: I can't budget other peoples money. Mr. LaPine: The only thing that worries me is that you are in a residential area and naturally we want this to look as nice as possible. I would like to see more brick but I wouldn't vote against you because of that. Mr. Hawkins: In looking at the neighborhood there is approximately a third brick and two thirds vinyl and wood siding.. Most of the home adjacent in this immediate area are tri- levels in which only about one third brick up to about here is brick. Then you have two story homes which are about two thirds and either wood or vinyl siding. Mr. McMillan: We do believe that this structure will enhance the neighborhood. It is a beautiful concept and we think it will add to the neighborhood. Mr. LaPine: Are the members from that neighborhood or from all over. Mr. McMillan: They are mostly from the Livonia area. Mr. Piercecchi: How about a compromise here? How about 59%on the front and sides and a four foot wainscot which faces the drain? How is that? Is that agreeable? Mr. McMillan: I am not able to commit the congregation to additional expense at this time but certainly we could bring it before them and gain their approval to add whatever additional funds are required. Mr. Piercecchi: So you want to table this and come back? Mr. McMillan: Yes. Mr. McCann: We want to go to the public and we want to hear what they say before we make a decision. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi; I'll offer a tabling motion. 16646 Mr. McMillan: I have talked to some of the parishioners and they would agree to the 50% compromise. Mr. McCann: There is a motion, there is no body supported do we have an alternate motion? On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #1-22-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-12-2-31 by Pastor Kenneth MacLeod, on behalf of Presbyterian Free Church, requesting waiver use approval to construct a new church sanctuary on property located on the south side of Curtis Road between Melvin and Doris Avenues in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-12-2-31 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 2 prepared by David L. Hawkins and Associates dated November 30, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscaping shown on the Site Plan is hereby approved and all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 of 2 prepared by David L. Hawkins and Associates, dated November 30, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to except that brick shall constitute at least 50%of the areas of the front and side walls of the building and that there shall be a brick wainscot at least 4 feet in height above grade the full extent of the rear walls; 4) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4- inch brick, no exceptions; 5) That the area of the proposed parking lot expansion shall be hard-surfaced with asphalt to match the existing parking area; and 6) That the existing parking lot shall be repaired and resealed, where needed, to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and the entire expanded parking lot shall be double-striped. For the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 16647 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-2-32 by Peter J. Terry requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within the Concord Shopping Plaza located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Terrence and Sunnydale Avenues in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated December 23, 1998,which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, and the following approximate legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan; described as beginning N. 0°11'00" West, 90 feet and due East, 341 feet from the West 1/4 corner of Section 13 and proceeding thence due North, 50 feet; thence N. 25° W., 31.5 feet;thence N. 45° E., 72 feet;thence S. 45° West, 65 feet; thence due West 10 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We also have a letter dated January 6, 1999 which states: "In response to the captioned petition, and Preliminary Plat,the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated January 11, 1999 which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant within Concord Shopping Plaza on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Peter J. Terry, 409 Sunningdale, Inkster, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about your project. Mr. Terry: I would like to open a limited restaurant - soup, salad and sandwiches based on a theme of a picnic -that is the name - Picnic Sandwich&Basket Shop. The idea behind it is pretty much a deli, fresh sliced ham, turkey and pastrami. There will be 16648 no deep fried greasy cooked foods. It is a step above, I don't want to offend anyone, but it is a step above a Subway. We will offer some subs but it is more of a deli. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Are there any other restaurants of this type in the immediate area? Mr. Terry: Immediate area? As in a mile radius? Mr. Piercecchi: Even within 5 miles or 10 miles. Mr. Terry: There is a deli just south of 7 Mile, same side of the street. I don't recall the name of it. Mr. McCann: He is wondering about your business. Do you have any other operations or is this your first one? Mr. Terry; No,this is my first one. Mr. Piercecchi: The only one I can think of that is of this nature was the old one when I was in college near the University of Detroit where they had benches and that sort of thing. Europe uses this type of restaurant. I was just wondering what your experience was with this type of restaurant,using picnic tables where you are sharing. Do you know of any other sites which are of the same novel approach where you know of their history? Mr. Terry: You can call it community seating. I currently work at Russell Street Deli in Detroit. We have seats of tables of six basically. It is community seating. If there is a table with a seat open you are welcome to sit there. Mr. Piercecchi: So there is no problem with mixing the seating? Mr. Terry: No. Mr. Piercecchi: It is a very novel idea, I like it. Mr. Terry: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Where did you say you work,Russell Street Deli? Mr. Terry: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: I have eaten there quite frequently. You say the facility will tie in with the picnic theme and also have space for retail goods? Besides selling food,you are going to 'be selling picnic baskets,table cloths, rolls, back packs and fancy packs. Will all of this be with a theme on it of picnic or just merchandise you can buy so you are operating a retail store with a restaurant or will it plug the restaurant? 16649 Mr. Terry: It is really a restaurant with retail sales. I am trying to carry the entire theme. Everywhere I look retail places sell picnic baskets,the plates,the cups, the plastic ware but they don't sell the food with it. I want to sell the picnic baskets and wares with the food in it. So they can take it to a city park and enjoy themselves. Mr. LaPine Do people pick up their food and take it with them? Mr. Terry: No, we have 30 seats, well actually five (5)tables with six (6) seats for each table. Mr. Piercecchi: I find this an enhancement to that plaza myself. Mr. McCann: If there are no other questions, I'll go the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing no one, I will close the public hearing and a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #1-23-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-12-2-32 by Peter J. Terry requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within Concord Plaza located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Terrence and Sunningdale Avenues in the N.W. 1/4 of Sectionl3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-12-2-32 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats not to exceed a total of 30 for the following reasons: 1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with surrounding Uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-2-33 by Dan Bywalec requesting waiver use approval to operate a landscape contractors business with outdoor storage on property located on the eastside of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Schoolcraft Road/I-96 Expressway in the N.W. 1./4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 16650 Mr. Nowak We have a letter dated December 29, 1998 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated January 6, 1999 which states: "In response to the captioned petition, and preliminary plat,the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated January 7, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your request of December 22, 1998,the site plan for the above petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Section 13.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance requires that parking areas be improved. There is no indication that the existing gravel area is to be improved. (2) The existing parking areas are currently snow covered and may need to be repaired, resealed and double striped. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. There is a letter dated January 11, 1999 which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a landscaping contractor business with outdoor storage on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Sir please give us your name and address. Dan Bywalec, 17276 Burgess, Detroit, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Tell us about what you want to do? Mr. Bywalec: I am president of D &B Landscaping. My business has been in business since 1972. This is our 26th year of doing landscaping contracting, lawn fertilization, weed control and lawn irrigation systems. We currently are occupying the building at 38281 Schoolcraft Road, Suite H, in the Interchange Commerce Park. That site cannot keep our business in flow so we are able to lease a building here on Merriman Road and we wanted to do some improvements to the building and move our landscaping contracting business there. We currently are doing projects in the City of Livonia. We are currently doing the Victor Corporate Parkway for Kogian with Walberg Aldridge. At Six Mile and Newburgh we did the First Federal Bank. We probably have done 15 or 20 buildings in Livonia. We did the 7 Mile Crossing, Cookers Restaurant. We are a pretty will established company. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Then I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, sir do you have anything further to add? Mr. Bywalec: We were contacted by the Planning Department and I did have a copy of revised 16651 twsite plans. Mr. McCann: Did you provide that to the staff? Mr. Bywalec: No,I have not. I only have three plans. They were talking about some existing paved areas in the back where we did have to park our trucks on. We were not familiar with that section 13.06 of the City's Zoning Ordinance so we will be doing some new paved parking areas in the back. The whole existing parking lot and drive is all going to be renovated. All of that is going to be removed and all new asphalt will be in. We are going to re-landscape the whole front of the building with all new sod and all new irrigation and all new drainage. Mr. McCann: Al, can we approve this subject to all the paved areas being resurfaced? Mr. Nowak: My understanding in talking to Dave Woodcox was that any of the rear area that was going to used for parking or storage of equipment, materials or vehicles was to be paved. Mr. McCann: So that makes it simple. As long as that is part of our resolution, or that is actually in our building code so we don't have to worry about that. Mr. Bywalec: I actually have a question on that. We do all of the landscape maintenance for Ameritech in the City of Livonia for all of their buildings. They do have buildings that we plow at Plymouth and Merriman and Globe Street and some of the other ones. Some of those buildings where they park their vehicles are paved but where they park some of their trailers their storage of reels, those areas are only gravel. Mr. McCann: Maybe we should send our Inspection Department over to inspect them. What I have to deal with tonight is a new site here. We are going to modify this site. We are going to allow a waiver use we have to make sure it's up to code. And if the code requires that all areas for storage or equipment parking be paved, then we have to make sure that the site plan complies with that. Mr. Bywalec: Right, I understand that. Is it just the area where trucks are going to be parked because of possible leakage of oil and things like that or does that whole area in the back have to be paved. Mr. Nowak: Section 13.06 that is referenced in Mr. Woodcox's letter states that all driveways and off street parking and storage areas shall be improved with a minimum of 6" concrete or plant mixed asphalt or paving improvement of equivalent design as approved by the Engineering Division within two years from the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Inspection Department and shall be maintained in a smooth, firm, usable and dust-proof condition. Mr. Bywalec: We would definitely do the paving. Mr. McCann: Let me clarify this, we can table this for two weeks to get clarification as to what 16652 area has to be paved and what area does not and get the site plans brought up to date or we'll approve it subject to Mr. Woodcox's letter that all required paving be provided. Mr.Nowak, do you agree that that would be sufficient? Subject to all the requirements by Mr. Woodcox's letter.... Mr. Nowak: I believe we could do it to the discretion of the Inspection Department as far as what portion of the rear parking area has to be paved. Mr. McCann: That would be fine with us. Mr. Bywalec: We wouldn't have any problem with that. Whatever areas that would need to be paved in the back to substantiate our operations would be no problem to us. Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing. I motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #1-24-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, on Petition 98-12-2-33 by Dan Bywalec requesting waiver use approval to operate a landscape contractors business with outdoor storage on property located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Schoolcraft Road/I-96 Expressway in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-12-2-33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan submitted by D &B Landscaping, as received by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1999, which illustrates the proposed landscape contractors storage yard, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all contractors vehicles,trailers, equipment and supplies shall be stored in the rear yard only and this rear yard storage shall be maintained in an orderly manner; 3) That paving of the unimproved portions of the rear yard storage area shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department in accordance with the standards and requirements as set forth in Section 13.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4) That the bulk storage bins shall be constructed in accordance with the details provided on the Site Plan and the outdoor storage of all loose material such as mulch, sand, stone, topsoil, bark and cobblestone shall only occur within these bins; 5) That the landscaping shown on the Site Plan is hereby approved and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 16653 6) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7) That the existing parking areas shall be repaired and resealed, where needed, to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and the employee and visitor parking spaces shown on the Site Plan shall be double-striped. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest L.L.C. to be located on the east side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated January 4, 1999 which states: "I have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed Merriman Forest Subdivision and at this time, I fmd no discrepancies or problems in this plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Ronald R. Reinke, Superintendent of Parks&Recreation. There is another letter dated January 4, 1999 which states: "Upon review of the attached preliminary plat per your request,the following items should be noted: (1) The misalignment of Pickford Avenue across Merriman Road may be objectionable to Wayne County. The position of the proposed intersection, in relationship to the existing Pickford/Merriman Road intersection, creates conflicting left turn movements. (2) On site storm sewer detention may be required for the proposed subdivision. (3) Encroachment of the Merriman Road right-of-way for the purpose of utility extensions, and roadway approach work will require a Wayne County permit. The Engineering Division has no other objections to the concept of the proposed subdivision layout." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We have a letter dated January 6, 1999 which states: "In response to the captioned 16654 petition, and Preliminary Plat,the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated January 14, 1999 which states: "Please be advised that Livonia Fire &Rescue has no objections to the proposal of Merriman Forest Subdivision. Hydrant spacing should be consistent with City of Livonia ordinances. Minimum water supply, at the most remote hydrant, shall be 1,000 gallons per minutes." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan Inc., 36937 Schoolcraft, Livonia. I am here representing the developers of this subdivision. A couple of items that were noted by the City of Livonia Engineering Department,the misalignment of Pickford Avenue and the requirement for the permits to work within the right-of-way of Merriman Road as soon as we get our platting done, the preliminary engineering drawings completed, we will be contacting Wayne County and discussing the misalignment of Pickford Avenue and see how we can make arrangements with Wayne County to get their approval. Also we will work with Wayne County to get the permit for the approach of the proposed road and the installation of any utilities that would be required in the right-of-way. As far as the storm drainage,part of our preliminary design will be analyzing the existing storm drainage facilities in this area. Analyzing the capacity and determining what type or how much of a detention may be appropriate. We will also be working with the City Engineering Department in that matter. The streets will be paved according to city standards all other utilities will be according to city standards. That is basically it. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Mr. McCann: Does anyone have any questions at this time? Hearing none, I will then go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to be heard on this matter? William Zalewski, 18687 Bainbridge, which is directly behind this proposed subdivision. In February of 1998 this proposed subdivision was brought up and we found out by accident. We had surveyors in our backyard. At that point and time we went through the Planning Commission and found out through a prehearing review and everything was planned. Nobody had any say. Nobody told anybody anything. We got together with our neighbors. We wrote a letter of concern to the Livonia City Council and also to the Planning Commission. It was certified and sent in. We also have a list of 100 to 150 people in the subdivision that are opposed to it. Some of the reasons we highlighted what we object to with this proposal and I would like to read them. It really hasn't changed much from last year but I would like to read it anyway. The Bainbridge Court Subdivision has a unique situation the way the courts are laid out. The houses are set very deep because we are all on cul-de-sacs. There are some houses that have decks that are only 15' from the lot line. The proposed title of the subdivision is Merriman Forest. If you are looking at the diagram of where the majority of these houses where you have mature cherry trees that are all going to be cleared out. I don't know where they got the Merriman Forest because there isn't going to be any forest there. We're not going to have any environmental areas left for any trees, wildlife or even plant life. It's a concern for the city, I really believe that. The proposed entry from Pickford and Denne streets are going to allow car headlights that are going to go right into our subdivision. 16655 True we have enjoyed for the last 20 years wooded area with pheasants and foxes and rabbits and opossums and horses. We have enjoyed it all. Yes, granted it is not our property but it is something we paid for 25 years ago. It is a premium lot. That is what we paid for as part of our enjoyment. We would like to know exactly where the utilities will go and the sewers will go. Some of the homes on Bainbridge have had water damage from when we have had heavy rains. The builders are not sure yet exactly where the sewers are going to go. The storm sewers are on our easements right now. I don't think they can handle another 15 or 17 houses. I do have a few questions as to how the subdivision was formed and how it is going to look. Going back to when the property was obtained, if a lot of this property was land locked and if the existing neighbors were not notified that they were splitting them. I don't know if that is something we should be notified. I would like to get an answer to that. I would like to know what the price ranges are going to be in this subdivision. I just found out about the preliminary review. We found out last Thursday.... Mr. McCann: Sir, if I could interrupt for just a second, because it is my understanding, that there has been prior discussions, you are representing the subdivision association? Mr. Zalewski: Yes. Mr. McCann: My understanding was that several people had a meeting with Mayor Kirksey. Mr. Kirksey contacted myself. I had some limited discussion tonight with some of the other commissioners regarding the issue that our notice did not give you sufficient time to prepare for this evening. What we decided might be appropriate, and the Mayor asked,to consider a tabling resolution for two weeks to allow the neighbors to sit down with the petitioner for several reasons. (1) To address your concerns about the type of homes he plans to build. What type of subdivision he intends to build. (2) To address what trees can be saved and marked and to show what is along here. And try to work out some of these issues without saying yes or no and making one or the other party extremely upset, if you can work with him. I did not hear any objections from the other commissions to the two week adjournment,that is what our intent is. However we are happy to listen to you tonight with the understanding that that is what our direction is intended to be. Mr. Zalewski: You just beat me to the punch. That was my closing remarks that I would like to get an extension so that we could either work with the developer to get to a point where he knows our concerns so that it makes it a win/win situation for both sides and everybody walks out of here happy. Mr. McCann: Believe me,that's the best way in the world. Thank you for your comments and I will hear other comments as this is a scheduled public hearing tonight. Barbara Beauchamp, 18986 Merriman Road. I am the large property north of this proposed subdivision. I know you plan on tabling this but that's saying that we are agreeing to this. I am not agreeing to this subdivision. I have within 5 minutes time collected 25 signatures tonight. Just mentioning about the mini-subs that are going up in Livonia. I am not happy with it. It changes my entire life style. I tried to 16656 write something tonight other than what I had written before. You have all heard it. I still feel the same way that you are not addressing the situation at all. All you want is to get as many houses or buildings or whatever you can, disregarding the wetlands or anything else that interferes with what you want done. I just expected living in Livonia for 26 years now that,you know individual rights, yes group rights have something too, how many other people in Livonia are affected by this. The people in the sub,their backyards and me. The people who sold off their backs are people that have only been there less than three years. They have no interest in the land. They have no interest the neighborhood. They don't care they're not going to be there in three years anyway. Do you know how hard it is to get in and out of your house,our driveway now since Merriman Road has been widened? Do you know how many people try to run you over because you are turning right? They don't want you to impede their forward motion. They're anxious to get through that intersection up ahead of them. I've had to actually go past my driveway or get hit. I have had people pass me in the left turn lane trying to pull into my driveway. You are talking 17 houses here now, a minimum of 34 more cars in that area. We have no right-of-way to get out of our driveway now because the subdivision takes it across the street,the light does the rest. The lights are not timed. If you get cleared one way, you've got them coming the other way. Just in this snow crisis that we had, Merriman Road right lane, 3-1/2 feet to 4 feet was not cleared for a week. We received no mail delivery for a week. When we finally did get mail delivery, we found out they were delivering it to the empty house next door. I know that is none of your concern but that is the concern of ours. I wrote some things down here, who knows, I've probably addressed any of them before. You were talking to other proposals about buying that extra piece of property. Just buy it from them and everything will be all better and it will solve all our problems. That is exactly how I was approached on this subdivision by the real estate person in charge who happens to be on Council. I was intimidated. I feel sorry for the people that are being asked to sell their property. I know money speaks more importantly than wildlife or nature or a person's life style or their concerns, their wants. So my neighbors sold out. There is nothing I can say to them. I can't stop it if that is what they chose to do. You are telling me I have no rights. I can't stop this but I can tell you how I feel about it. I can tell you that there are a lot of people in Livonia that are unhappy with these micro-subs, in five minutes and I've gotten more since. All I've had to do is mention it. Oh, I don't like that,that looks terrible. There is a subdivision that was started on Six Mile just west of Inkster that is still not completed to this day. On Seven Mile another subdivision was started besides the ones that they did along Mr. McCann: I am going to have to keep you on pointWe are looking at a plat approval for a subdivision and that is going to be the focus... Mrs. Beauchamp: And that is exactly what I am talking about, plat approval. I disagree and I don't think it should be approved. Tom Beauchamp: 18986 Merriman, same residence. I had a reasonably nice experience walking into the building this evening and seeing the art work in the lobby and as I noticed it I happen to notice that none of it was of track homes or micro-subs or 16657 subdivisions of any kind. In fact only two of those pieces of art were of a building of any kind. And if you note those two were entirely surrounded by nature of trees and landscaping. I just wonder if we just look around and see everything that is depicted in art or even literature returning back to nature and things natural. Why do we spend so much of our time destroying that very thing brings such joy? I wondered and I have been told by a builder that there is a requirement for a tree plot. Is that in this stage? Mr. McCann: Not at this point,this is preliminary plat approval. Mr. Beauchamp: See that doesn't mean anything to me because I'm not in your field of work. Mr. McCann: The property is zoned R-3. He is petitioning to develop the property as it is zoned. So what we are looking for is configuration, basically, entry, easement that type of thing. That is what the discussion is here for tonight. Mr. Beauchamp: The gentlemen who talked earlier about the realignment of streets, I wonder why it wasn't originally proposed so that the streets were aligned? Can anyone answer that? Mr. McCann: That is the problem with the site plan at this point. It does not align across Merriman and that is one of the concerns we are looking at. Mr. Beauchamp: And when the gentlemen said we will have to go through and make arrangements, what does that mean? Mr. McCann; That means that Merriman Road is a county road. It is owned by Wayne County, they are responsible for it. Any easements on to that road have to be approved by Wayne County. Mr. Beauchamp: So in essence it is to make adjustments to the standard so that it can be approved the way it has been presented. Mr. McCann: Yes that is what he would have to do and that is through Wayne County, not through us. Mr. Beauchamp: Another issue is the one with the storm sewers and again just coming out of the snow that we have received clearing the roads and removing that snow and piling it up along the side of this road that is being proposed there would all but completely obliterate our view of oncoming traffic. I know it was hard enough clearing our driveway so that we could have a site line of oncoming traffic but if it were to happen in the future with this road there, we wouldn't have any say in the matter and I can safely say that our view would be completely obstructed which is a consideration that you should have. I wonder what your plans are, you are the Planning Commission, I wonder what your plans are for the City of Livonia. Are there any actual plans? Mr. McCann: It is called future land use plan that you can come during regular business hours 16658 and get a copy of and it is basically what the direction the City believes the zoning for each individual area, what we think the future land use should be for that area. Mr. Beauchamp: So there is a plan? We are not just left up to the random petitions of any builder or contractor that blows through the city. Mr. McCann: This is in compliance with the future land use plan which is medium density, right Al? Mr. Nowak: Low density residential. Mr. Beauchamp: Can somebody define that or explain that low density residential? Mr. Nowak: It corresponds to the density of one to five dwelling units per acre. The R-3 classification would fall within that classification. Mr. Beauchamp: O.K. Can it also then be explained to me why this area when it contains some of the largest pieces of property in the City would be zoned R-3 when properties directly across the street with properties half to a third of the size are zoned RUF? Mr. McCann: Sir, I think we discussed this at the last hearing and I think it goes back 15 years, the zoning classification and I think it was... Mr. Nowak: As I recall it was previously zoned RU which was a zoning classification that was comparable to R-3 in width. I think it has slightly greater depth requirement. The closest comparable zoning classification in the new zoning ordinance was the R-3 classification. Mr. Beauchamp: O.K. I would like you to consider denying this proposal not just tabling it. I feel that it is not in the best interest of the city let alone the best interest of those residents in the nearby area who are directly affected by this. I would like to see that these residences are to be sold off, that they be put on open market and not be subject to the seemingly underhanded attempts of realtors and other real estate professionals to manipulate and intimate homeowners into selling off their pieces of property for these type of uses. Thank you. Suzanne Beauchamp, 18986 Merriman, same residence, same concerns, basically there are a lot of things I can say about this but mostly, I am really disgusted with the way Livonia is turning out recently. I work with a number of people and I know a number of people who have moved out of Livonia in the past three to five years because of these mini-subs that are going up everywhere. It seems that there cannot be two inches of land open without a saying that something needs to be put on this whether it is a building or a home, anything. Then what happens, we have strip malls empty, offices empty and we just keep building and it a serious concern of mine. It makes me feel like I don't want to live in Livonia if this is the future of Livonia and that is a real shame because I grew up here and my intention was to stay here but that is quickly changing. I also want to say from a business aspect, I am an administrator at a private psychiatric clinic that 16659 is located in Livonia and speaking with the owner there are some concerns about this from a business aspect and thoughts are of moving out of Livonia, moving out of this area because it is becoming too developed,too populated, too many businesses,too much traffic. The only thing I can see to rectify these traffic problems is to turn these already widened five lane roads into seven lane roads. Then we are talking about building roads on top of peoples houses. Do we want to have all of that cement in this area. It is ugly not to mention what it does to us in the summer time in terms of heat index. There are a number of factors here. As previously mentioned, the wildlife. I think there may be a plan for Livonia but I don't see it respecting those people who are already here. I understand people want to move to Livonia but there are a lot of houses on the market already. We don't need to keep building more because the more we do this the more people are going to get fed up with it and leave and Livonia is not going to be the nice wonderful place it is anymore. It is not going to be the number one place to raise your kids, as it has in the last couple of years. We are moving away from that. The more we develop the more we disrespect those people who have been here for 20 - 30 years and just as a side note too, we are approaching the year 2000 and it kind of upsets me to think we are worrying about putting up more houses but how is the city prepared for the year 2000? Are we prepared to deal with the crisis if that occurs with all the glitches in the system. What is going to happen? Mr. McCann: Main, again.... Ms. Beauchamp: I realize it is off topic but again it is the whole picture. It is the same thing with these mini-subs, it is the whole picture. If we just focus on individual proposals, then we forget the whole picture. That is my concern and I know that is the concern of the people who have already spoken. We cannot just focus on an individual case. Because that is where Livonia has gone wrong. In the past and will continue to if we don't put a stop to it now. That is what I have to say. Thank you. Jim Peltier, 31378 Hillbrook,Livonia. Three concerns, one of them you took care. My point was I don't understand commercial developers all work with the local land owners around their development. I guess I don't understand why in a situation like this that it isn't encouraged so thank you for offering to table this. My real concern is pretty much what you have already heard and probably tired of hearing it. I don't understand why we have to continue building these small subs. I don't understand why there is a proposal for a plat on a piece of land that is already residential, already R-3 and it already has a house on every piece of land we are talking about. Why do we have to cut all those pieces of land in half to put more houses on them. Obviously the people who bought those pieces of land because they wanted a big piece of land. Now all of a sudden they don't want a big piece of land anymore they want to split off half of it. My house is at the end of Hillbrook so I am immediately south of this development. I have already watched a piece of land next to me get split into three pieces, put two more houses on it, put a driveway at the end of my cul-de-sac. I have already been down here before when they tried to put a subdivision extension onto Hillbrook street. Now we are coming in from the other direction off of Merriman and I also hear there are plans to come in off of 16660 Seven Mile. All of this land is already residential land so what is the point? I don't get it. During this process last year when we came down here and talked about this similar subdivision on the same piece of land there was some preliminary prehearing review comments that came out was if there was going a piece of land that there is some requirement that the developer has to vacate 720 sq. ft. per lot to the city for a park area. I don't see or haven't heard of any of those comments anymore in this piece of documentation. All I see are residential homes that are divided right up to the limit of the requirements for R-3 and I don't see any park area designated at all. So I guess I would like to understand what that designation is all about and why it doesn't seem to be appearing in this subdivision. Can anybody answer that? Mr. McCann: We would have to waive that section of the ordinance under the preliminary plat. I think the discussions were going to be as to what type of berm or easement or some of that property that could used along the south end along the homes that come off of Bainbridge. That is some of the issues that are going to be looked at. Mr. Peltier: So it is still a requirement? Mr. McCann: The open space requirement We would have to waive that which is regularly done in smaller subdivisions but we haven't done that in this situation. Mr. Peltier: I guess I don't understand, is there a reason why? Mr. McCann: The history has been in the smaller subs it becomes land that is not taken care of. It is not land that is used. It is such a small part, it can be better used in different ways. That is one of the conditions that we were going to look at as far as any type of easement, berm or whatever could be done along the east side of the property. Mr. Peltier: Any comments on the whole philosophy of putting a sub into an area that is already residential in the first place? Mr. McCann: Sir, it is a very complicated situation. From a legal standpoint we are a country that is based on individual rights, individual right to own property. That was one of the things that our founding fathers said. You do have the right to own and develop property. The community as a whole has set forth city ordinances which we have to abide by. These ordinances have been set forth and as such this was zoned an R-3 district. The Bainbridge property was not originally an R-2 district. Somebody came in, bought the property and developed it. Mr. Peltier: But it is already R-3. I already agree with that Mr. McCann: Any individual has the right under our city code to develop it under the R-3. If he has sufficient room there, he has the legal right to develop it under the R-3 category. That is was he is attempting to do. Mr. Peltier: Who owns this piece of property we are talking about? I understand that it is still 16661 owned by all the original landowners. Nobody has bought anything. That is what the city records show. Mr. McCann: Sir, I am going to clear that up after I hear comments because I do want it on the record. They may only have an option on the property. I don't know what the current status of the legal title is. Mr. Peltier: It seems like we get through this process where somebody gets agreement to put in the sub then they go all the property. If they were forced to spend all the money up front and buy the property and risk their money then go for plat approval, they may not try it. We are allowing an option to happen here ..... Mr. McCann: That splits in the private sector that is not something we can control. Mr. Peltier: Lot splits? Mr. McCann: No,options to purchase. Mr. Peltier: Who does lot splits? Mr. McCann: That is a separate section of the code. We are not dealing with that tonight. That has nothing to do with what is before me. Mr. Peltier: Then how can I present a plan for a subdivision when I don't own the property? Mr. McCann: Sir, if you have some option on the property, you have some property ownership. Mr. Peltier: Then they should have to go through normal lot split procedures, one lot at a time. Mr. McCann: Sir,this is not a lot split,this is a preliminary plat. It is totally different. Mr. Peltier: So we could go and propose objections to lot splits even after you agree... Mr. McCann: There is no lot split here sir. Mr. Peltier: There are four lots that have to split. Mr. McCann: It is preliminary plat. It is coming within the code under the R-3 section. John, maybe you explain. Mr. Nagy: This is a preliminary design. It is not an ordinance change that we are affecting. It is a subdivision layout and it is being examined for compliance with the subdivision rules and regulations. All they are required to do is show they have the consent of the property owner to bring forward a preliminary plan for the commission to review. It will not become final until the fmal plat itself is brought in for review. Mr. Peltier: Don't these lots still have to be split in order for this development to go forward? 16662 Mr. Nagy: By the platting process they then become split. The recording of the plat itself then they become split in compliance with the plat. Mr. Peltier: And it happens in one felt swoop as opposed to the attaching a lot at a time. Mr. Nagy: Exactly correct. Mr. Peltier: I guess my point being that we have made somehow a procedure that allows this assemblage of property so easy that we are encouraging people to do this type of development. I guess we find a way not to do that. Whether it is us as homeowners to petition the city, I don't know what it is going to take to stop this but somebody has to stop this. If not with this sub, then with the next one. Thank you. Dennis Fanner, 18699 Bainbridge. My house is one of the houses that is going to be affected directly by this proposal. I won't take your time. I came here tonight hoping we could get this matter tabled. Personally, I am against these micro-subs not only this one but throughout the city. I think I expressed that the last time we were here. This one now is personal. It is my understanding that the builder/developer will meet with us, is that correct? Mr. McCann: That is what our suggestion is. As I stated before,I had conversations with the Mayor regarding any questions that he would address. It is our suggestion that you work with the staff and the staff will work with the builder and hopefully all the parties will get together. I will put the builder on the spot tonight to make sure he makes a time and place available to meet with all of you next week in order to address these issues. Mr. Farmer: Thank you, I heard comments tonight about density, trees and wetlands and concerns for overpopulation and again after 30 years of working for the city there is the written letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I hope we have the wisdom to know the difference. Melvin Wolicki, 18579 Bainbridge, which runs right along the back side of this new subdivision. When I purchased my house 24 years ago,the one reason I bought the house was because of the privacy of the woods and the wildlife around. I know life changes but I have many concerns about the new subdivision going in. The layout,the size of the houses and like you said hopefully we will meet with the builder but I would like to make sure storm drainage and cul-de-sac in the new subdivision, that a fire truck can make that turn on that thing. It doesn't really say on that thing how large that roadway is. Mr. McCann: The Fire Department has to approve it. Mr. Wolicki: I am just basically voicing my opinion. I am against the subdivision but life goes on. 16663 Mr. McCann: We are going to try and make an opportunity to meet with the petitioner. Don McGowan, 18680 Merriman. I own the treed lot that has the most nature and trees on it. I have sold that to the developer. A friend of mine two doors to the north right next to the lady at the next three acre parcel. We submitted a plan to break up and develop that land about six years ago. There is a copy of it in City Hall. Since two or three other builders have tried to come up with the funds to buy the property unsuccessfully. One builder came up with the funds and he was in my estimation a low class builder, somebody who wasn't going to build quality homes that the area deserves and I didn't sell to him. As far as this being snuck in on people, I don't know where they have been hiding but a proposal was given to me to purchase my property with a stipulation they had a year to close. The year ran out and I had to sign a new contract with them. This has been on the table and in the city six years. The isn't something somebody sneaking in and trying to do. Numerous builders have tried to put it together. For one reason or another,they didn't. The present has put up and bought and purchased and owns large pieces of this proposed thing. I don't know he has closed on every property but I know he has put up hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to purchase most of the property and my piece was one of them. I have closed and I have the money. As far as the amount of time it has been there, I have been here at this residence for 11 years at this residence, I bought it from the lady who built the house 50 years. I am only the second owner of the 50 year old house. It is not a turn over get rich quick scheme. It is not something that was proposed last month, last year. It's been almost a decade this has been going on. As far as nature,I own the nature and all the trees everybody seems to talk about including the lady who has all grass. It is cut and mowed right to the back, right to Bainbridge. All the people, and they bring people, every adjacent person to my woods dumps on it. The precious stuff they are trying to make these wild trees that have overgrown and nobody tries to help me when I cut them off my fence or off my house and garage. The expense of cleaning up and paying people to try and maintain it. I have steadily tried to thin them out, cut them back away from my buildings and create a yard. Nobody wants to help with the expenses of trying of having a nice nature but everybody dumps on it. I've got branches, mulch from Bainbridge where they take their grass and dump it into my woods,the precious woods. Everybody throws branches. If a branch falls off a tree in their yard they pick it up and throw it into the woods, on every side, every adjoining neighbor. A couple of them I know,the bad part I don't care as long as they don't throw it on the grass part where I have to maintain a lawn. I don't saw anything to them. But every adjoining neighbor abuses what they call a previous wildlife environment. I find kids back there that have done dope. I have found dope paraphernalia. I have found whiskey bottles and beer bottles. I have cleaned the place up. I have pulled pallets away to try to get kids away from there from doing stuff that they are not suppose to be doing, illegal stuff. I am trying to get them out of the woods because it is a bad secluded area. As far as some of the other situations about the headlights and all that on Bainbridge and all the cul-de-sac he is so proud of and he is worried about another subdivision going in shining all those lights on him. I dare you to get an architect to design a subdivision with so many cul-de-sacs that the impact of headlights on all those cul-de-sacs and everyone of those homes. If it was a straight street, you drive down a street, I mean a lot of things they are the worst 16664 offenders of. They have smaller lots than what this builder is proposing. It is already zoned, they are not asking for a variance. It is already zoned there. They don't want anybody to break up anymore land or have any more residents in Livonia. Yet a hundred people in Bainbridge a hundred residents in a small area and they've got the nerve to even question anybody about selling acreage off to put 17 homes in. Once they got their home built in their subdivision nobody else can enter Livonia. Are we suppose to cut it off. Even the lady who built in 1945 split up a farm to get my two acres. The guy next door built in the early 50's. He built on an acre. The house north of him that is being torn down because of this, is an ugly house that has been there for a long time, had horses on it,they are illegal to have in the city anymore. When he got rid of it he can't replace them so what are you going to do with the acreage. He has a fence back there and a barn and he can't use it. He can't get anymore horses. So there a lot of things that they are totally are the worst offenders of, because they already have their small lot. They already have their house. The biggest impact on all of the neighbors in the neighborhood that a small sub like this could do, is the value of your house,the surrounding houses. That is really the only say they have. It's not up to them whether I cut my trees down, split my property as long as everything is to code or to the ordinances. So,the only impact they have is the value of their house. They should have the right to speak up if it is going to decrease or demise their investment. As far as I can see the impact on their house is that some of the older people aren't going to be able to afford the tax increase because all of their values are going to go up. All the houses on Merriman and all the traffic and almost getting hit,there is not one of these houses going to enter off of Merriman. If you look at it as a subdivision where they are going to turn on a street and people stop when you make a turn off of one street onto another one or slow down. If anybody has a traffic problem it is the people who live off of Merriman, including myself. It is hard getting in and off Merriman. I didn't want to see the road widened. I didn't want to see my house sitting right on top of the highway. I've got two acres and my driveway is from my easement to my house. But so be it. It widened. But the biggest offenders are the people who live there already. They got what they want and they don't anybody else to live in Livonia. I hope you go along. It is a nice project. It is a quality builder. I've turned down selling my property to other builders who weren't so qualified. They do have the money. There wasn't any problem with the checks. They have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. I hope you increase the value of the neighborhood and, approve this. I hope everybody benefits from this. Instead of fighting the builders, there aren't too many quality builders that won't work with residents if they just talk to the builder and show their concerns, I'm sure he will talk to them and everything can be worked out and is beneficial to all of us just to communicate and not yea or nay the situation all the time. It doesn't have to be clear cut. It is progress for Livonia. I hope one lady might move out, but there are 17 houses there. Seventeen more expensive houses than mine. It is a good thing for Livonia. It will help the business population. There is more business for business. Maybe some of these stores that are out of business might be able to tie move back in because they will have 17 more families that need shoes and clothes. Thank you. David Rearden, 18500 Merriman Road. I came here on item number 4 and I happen to be going 16665 through the list and I see Merriman. I am four doors down from this site. I know nothing about it. How do we get notified about these things? Mr. McCann: Well actually you are going to be notified right this second because we are going to have a hearing in two weeks regarding this issue. I am going to talk to the representative from the Merriman Forest L.L.C. to try and set up something tonight either on record or let you meet with him later to see when a good time and place would be to meet. Mr. Reardon: Are the other neighbors on Merriman going to be notified about this? Mr. McCann: Only the ones who were already notified as of today's date. Mr. Nagy: The ordinance requires us to give notice to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Readen: Just the adjoining? Mr. McCann: Yes, because it is already zoned properly for what is going in there. Mr. Rearden: What is the minimum lot size for R-3? Mr.Nagy: The minimum width at the building line is 80'and 35'back from the public right- of-way line. A minimum depth of 120' and 9,600 sq. ft. in lot area. Mr. Reardon: The next meeting is going to be when? Mr. McCann: Two weeks from tonight. Mr. Reardon: Do you have the date? Mr. McCann: February 9, 1999 at 7:30. Sir, after you, I am closing the public hearing. I don't see anyone waiting to speak unless there is someone else who has not spoken, I am not going to reopen the floor to anyone who has already spoken. Glen Graham, 18630 Merriman. I have two issues. I would like to request that you do not waive the open space requirement and the zoning ordinance the 720 sq. ft. per lot. It is not a lot. It would probably end up to be about one lot from their 17 lots which would reduce it down to 16. But the small size of these lots and the large houses that have been built seem to require a little bit of space and it is what our planning commission had in mind when they wrote the ordinance. I would like that not to be waived. There is also on lots 11 and 12 the lot depth is 112' and no one mentioned that that was a variance from the minimum let depth requirement Mr. Nagy: The lot depth is the average width of the sides of the lot so you take the average of the two sides and split it down the middle you will see that they do exceed 120'. 16666 Mr. Graham: That is the definition of the lot is the horizontal and perpendicular of the rear of the lot line? So it will have enough to meet the requirement. Mr. McCann: Would the representative for Merriman Forest L.L.C. please come back? You've been here for the last hour, so you have a good understanding of the concerns of the people. Mr. Donnan: Yes we do. Mr. McCann: You also have a understanding of what I believe we are going to agree to a two week tabling motion so that you can meet with the people. Who is the developer now? Mr. Donnan: It is Merriman Forest L.L.C. I own the engineering company that is doing the design and engineering for them. Mr. McCann: This is not related to the prior owners Mr. Duggan or Mr. Soave that were involved with this? This is totally unrelated to either one of those people? Mr. Donnan: As far as I know no they are not involved with this project. Mr. McCann: Do you have a time and place you want to set right now where the neighbors could meet with you and discuss their concerns. Mr. Donnan: No, I don't. I am open to suggestions. I am available pretty much any time for a meeting. Mr. McCann: John, do you want to have this arranged through your office? Mr. Nagy: We would be happy to arrange it. Mr. McCann: If you will contact Mr.Nagy first thing tomorrow morning and the residents can also contact the city hall tomorrow afternoon and hopefully we will have a meeting time and place set up where all parties can meet and discuss the issues included in that is the greenbelt requirement which can be used across the rear property lines and if you can take a look at what can be done to save as many trees as possible, those are the issues, o.k.? Mr. Donnan: We intended to take a look at the trees since there are some very nice trees on that site and save what we can. Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #1-25-99 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1999 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile 16667 Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11, does hereby determine to table the Preliminary Plat Approval to the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1999. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 776th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on December 15, 1999. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #1-26-99 RESOLVED that,the Minutes of the 776th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on December 15, 1998 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted,the 778th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on January 26, 1999, was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION co . Dan Piercecchi, Secretary 771. ATTEST/ , L z,,, ---_ Jo es C. McCann, Chairman /rw i`,