Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-03-04 15410 MINUTES OF THE 740th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 4, 1997 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 740th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg John Walsh Michael S. Hale Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane*, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, 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 and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann: I would like to welcome Mr. Michael Hale, our newest member of the City Planning Commission. He lives in Livonia and is an attorney with Plunkett & Cooney in Detroit. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-1-29 by Kaftan Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Ryan Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to R-3. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating should the rezoning petition be approved, the preliminary plat for the residential area must be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality with respect to the open ditch which now transverses the site. It is possible that the above agency will not allow enclosure or any 15411 substantial relocation of this natural water course. Secondly, the elevation of the 100 year flood level associated with the Bell Creek area of the area of the proposed cul de sac must be determined by the field survey. Any appreciable fill of the flood plain to accommodate the construction of the cul de sac will be reviewed further by this office and may require a waiver use petition relative to any fill being placed in the designated flood plain. We have also received a letter from William& Margaret Follmer of 30410 Greenland stating as Livonia residents for over 20 years they oppose the rezoning. They continue to state we purchased our property because of the open space, trees, woods etc. that were provided in the large lots. As real estate people say "Location, location, location". As usual, as an area develops, there is a continuous cry from the developers to reduce lot size requirements as they claim "we can not economically develop such large lots in this area." What they are really saying is "We can make a lot more money by putting in more houses in the same space". This area was zoned R.U.F.C. for good reason. The surrounding lots are generally large. There are several creeks and flood plains to deal with. Local citizens want to maintain the present zoning. They end by saying the community can best be served by refusing to down size the lot requirements. We have also received a letter from Russell and Celeste Chernenk of 4"" 30830 Greenland, stating: We will not be able to attend the public hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 regarding the petition 96-12-1-29, but we would like to express our views concerning this petition in writing. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of the property designated within this petition. The rezoning of this property from RUFC to R-3 will destroy the rural-like surroundings of this neighborhood. We believe the construction of high-density housing on this property will lead to the demise of the country-within-a-city atmosphere, the basis for which we bought our home in this area. Please recommend to the City Council that this property remain zoned as RUFC (1/2 acre lots). We expect the views and concerns expressed in this letter to be officially recorded and considered when the Planning Commission rules on the petition. Also we received a letter from Lisa Asquini of 29628 Munger stating: On Tuesday, March 4th, you will be presented with petition number 96-12-1-29 which seeks to rezone property near me from RUFC to R- 3. I realize it is in the builder's better interest to construct as many homes as possible on the property. I am not against building on the property, but would not like to see the lot size decreased from what is the norm in our area. I urge you to consider the opinions of the 15412 surrounding neighbors who have signed the petition against it and I urge you to oppose this rezoning. We also have in our file a letter from Edwin S. Shynanski of 29840 Greenland stating: Please place on record that I, Edwin Shymanski, a land-owner at 29840 Greenland, DO OPPOSE the referred petition 96- 12-1-29, for rezoning the parcel of land from RUFC to R-3. Firstly, the rezoning may require change to the Bell Creek water drainage flow. My rear property line is Bell Creek and any upstream disturbance to the open ditch watershed drainage flow to either re-route, channel, funnel or control would increase the rate of speed of water runoff downstream. My creek bank has presently eroded during the past few years apparently due to some action that already was completed upstream. The width and crossection of the existing easement for the watershed on record on any existing property upstream must not be altered for the sake of the landowners downstream. I hope that there is sufficient site engineering experience on the planning commission to weigh this concern. Secondly, I have been living at this address for twenty two years in a RUF zoned area with spacious acreage. It is not my desire to have this area become congested with project type developments. I am not against the developer building on this property as long as the RUF district section 5.05 minimum lot size is satisfied without disturbing the watershed easement on record. Lastly, we have a petition that has been submitted that references the subject petition to rezone property from RUFC to R-3 in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 of the City of Livonia: The property owners of Bell Creek Estates, Willow Creek Estates, and Livrance Estates Subdivision are opposed to Petition 96-12-1-29 requesting the rezoning of property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, between Henry Ruff and Merriman Roads, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC (one family residential - 1/2 acre minimum lot size) to R3 (one family residential - 80' x120' lot size). A petition stating our opposition has been signed by 176 property owners and was filed with the Livonia City Clerks Office on March 3, 1997. We are opposed to subject petition for the following reasons: 1. R3 Zoning Is Inappropriate To Surrounding Area We object to the petitioner's statement that the rezoning of this property to R3 is a natural extension of the newly rezoned R3 property located directly across 6-mile. The subdivisions North of Six Mile to which the rezoned R3 property is adjacent are designated R2. (one family residential - 70'x120' lot size) This is not comparable to the lot size of the subdivisions South of Six Mile, which are a minimum of 1/2 acre with the majority of lots much larger. This would set a precedent for the area and provide the excuse to rezone other properties as they become available. 2. Inconsistent 15413 Zoning The petitioners rationale that R-3 zoning would make a good transition from the Office Service District which abuts the property on the East side will only increase the inconsistency of the zoning of property in this area. 3. Wet Lands & Flood Plains Are Conducive To RUF Zoning The property referred to in subject petition is laced with two natural streams, with the southern border on Belle Creek. The two streams are part of a natural drainage system have created large, deep ravines that cover major portions of the property. (See Attached Photos) The wetlands are protected by the DNR and cannot be used for building homes. RUF zoning allows sufficient land to include the wetlands and provide a buildable homesite on the lot size. Conversely, R-3 zoning provides lot sizes that are too small, resulting in lots that cannot be built on as the buildings would be located in, or encroaching on the wetlands. That was signed by a John V. Bartus, President of North Livrance Estates Housing Association, whose address is 30069 Munger, and he sent with it the 176 signatures on the petition along with photographs. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Charles Tangora: I am here on behalf of the petitioner. As mentioned in the petition filed by Kaftan Enterprises, Jeffrey Kaftan, the petitioner feels that it is transition type of zoning due to the fact that there was a recent office building built to the east of the proposed property. Also, I think you all recognize that further east of that there is a closed restaurant which has been closed for about three years and is zoned for commercial use, which is rumored to be on the verge of reopening. Those rumors have been rampant for the past three years. The proposal here, although you haven't seen the proposed site plan which shows Mr. Kaftan would like to build approximately 22 building sites in there, and Mr. Roskelly is here to talk about the water problem and the flood levels that could take several of those sites away. He has done some preliminary investigation on that. It is not complete but he is here in the audience and will speak to that. Further to the west you have the Willow Creek Estates and I wanted to point out since I have been involved in that subdivision for a long period of time, that the proposed lots that Mr. Kaftan would like to put into this proposal has the same width, 82 feet wide, which is similar to most of the lots in Willow Creek Estates. Some of them up in the northern part of that development are obviously wider but the majority of them are around 82 feet. The difference between that subdivision and the one we propose is the depth of the lots. The lots there are deeper than we would be able to develop. That is the difference and that is the reason for the difference in the zoning classification. As I indicated we are aware of the water problems and Mr. Kaftan has asked Mr. Roskelly to get involved and 15414 investigate this and we can make some preliminary findings at this time. I will ask Mr. Roskelly to address you as to the concerns of the Engineer and what problems we face as far as engineering this proposed subdivision. William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: As Mr. Tangora indicated I would be representing Mr. Kaftan as the site engineer. The letter from engineering, they speak of a natural water course that runs approximately through the middle, crosses Six Mile and crosses in the southeasterly direction approximately across the middle of this proposed parcel of land. You can see it on the drawing as an open creek. As I pointed out to Mr. Kaftan certainly that specific area could not be built. It would have to remain open space. The volumes of that must remain the same and as a result he did have a proposed subdivision that showed 22 lots. I suspect that with the proper treatment that through the Department of Natural Resources and the City of Livonia there would be a loss of perhaps three of the sites, which would bring him down to 19 rather than the 22 he is proposing. If we go to the extreme south end of this parcel, that is the approximate location of the 100 year flood plain, which certainly cannot be built. In that specific case the proposed cul- de-sac was encroaching into that, and certainly we all understand that is not possible. When we get into engineering we will certainly address all these problems. I would like to point out that with the configuration of this parcel, the only alternate to build RUF homes would be to put a 't" 60 foot road down the extreme east line of this property ending it with a cul-de-sac that would give you approximately eight or nine 1/2 acre sites, the problem being those properties that lie to the east would be double fronted. They would have a road in front and a road in back. This to me seems to be quite undesirable. If we look at the fact that this specific land is about 7.5 acres, when we take out the open spaces, which would be the 100 year flood plain along with that area that might be 40 to 50 feet wide along that open natural drainage course and road, and if we look at 7.5 acres and come up with 19 lots, we are really not too far off the minimum area of 1/2 acre, which would be 15 lots and we would have 19. They speak of 1/2 acre lots. Over to the east on the taxation map there are many parcels that have been divided and that are under 1/2 acre, and I believe that this specific property would lend itself well to R-3, and I do not believe in any way it would impair health, welfare or safety of the community. Mr. Piercecchi: Does Mr. Kaftan own these particular lots now or is it contingent upon this rezoning? Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Kaftan will have to answer that. 15415 Mr. Kaftan: It is contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Piercecchi: What about G1, which is the lot west of that? Won't that be landlocked and could never be built up? It is 174 feet wide according to my calculations but it looks like it would be landlocked. Mr. Roskelly: I spoke with Mr. Kaftan. The logic would be that would be the parcel to put it together but he indicates to me that he attempted that and it is not available. Mr. Piercecchi: There was an attempt to purchase? Mr. Roskelly: That would be Mr. Kaftan's answer. I spoke out of turn. Mr. Piercecchi: Without it, with 174 feet and if he put in a 50 foot road, there would be nothing left. Has any contact been made with the adjacent people over in Willow Creek Estate Subdivision in reference to their opinions. They live in Livonia but we all live in a neighborhood and what is closest to us is really where we live. Has that been tried? Jeffrey Kaftan, 25505 W. Twelve Mile Road, Southfield: Yes, in answer to that question. I met with about 40 homeowners of the surrounding areas, including homeowners in Willow Creek, with regards to our petition. * Mr. Shane entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Piercecchi: You met with them but 176 signed a petition that hopefully we would deny this and at the next stage Council would deny it. I was just wondering how much of a contact was made? Mr. Kaftan: I met with them and spoke with them and I indicated to them we would like to take some of their concerns and try to incorporate them into the development. They indicated to me that the majority of them didn't have a problem with me building in the area but they would like to see 1/2 acre lots. Mr. Piercecchi: The point of being the same width is a good point but, however, the density is what I am sure these people are concerned about. They want that depth. They don't want as many houses in there. Mr. Kaftan: If I could have 1/2 acre lots they would be happy with that. I have spoken to G1 before and I spoke to them again and the question is whether it is available or not. I guess anything for the right price is available. As far as I am concerned it is economically not available. 15416 Mr. Piercecchi: It would be a shame for the people who own that lot to build that up and they can never use it. Mr. Kaftan: It can be used as it presently is. Mr. Piercecchi: Ultimately that area sooner or later will be developed. We have to do it of course with the people and with their concerns. Perhaps you should make a more concerted effort with reference to Gl and perhaps you could satisfy your costs and profits and the people in that area. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Kaftan, you said you spoke with 40 people. Was that one to one or at a meeting? Mr. Kaftan: That was at a meeting. Mr. Alanskas: When was that? Mr. Kaftan: That was earlier this week. Mr. Alanskas: Did you get the names and addressees of who was there? Mr. Kaftan: I have some names but I didn't get a detailed list. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to see of that 40 if they were on the list that wants to deny this. Mr. Kaftan: I know I met with the writer of the petition and he is President of one of the homeowner associations and he is also here tonight. Mr. Alanskas: How long did this meeting last? Mr. Kaftan: I was there probably an hour and a half at least. Mr. Alanskas: What did you get out of the meeting from the response of the neighbors? Mr. Kaftan: Basically what they said was they wanted to see larger 1/2 acre lots. Another concern was with regards to the flood plain issue. Mr. Alanskas: That is a big issue. Right now looking at the property to go to R-3, because you have the Bell Creek coming across the flood plain, it is kind of hard to visualize just where these homes would be so possibly we may have to table this 15417 Mr. Kaftan: I think with our petition we have included a site plan showing the 22 lots. (He presented the plan) N` Mr. Alanskas: I thought you were down to 19 lots. Mr. Kaftan: Again speaking with Mr. Roskelly and with further examination and it will require more examination, we are looking at losing some lots. Mr. Alanskas: You are saying a maximum of 19 lots? Mr. Roskelly: As I spoke before and indicated that because of this open natural drain that runs in this direction, and there is quite a difference in elevation, I suggest that this area would be conservatively about 40 to 50 feet wide that is in a natural drainage area and cannot be touched, so therefore we would lose three of these parcels because of this open space. Along with that I also addressed the fact that the cul-de-sac was encroaching into the 100 year flood plain. Because of this I suggest this lot also may be lost. That is where I arrived at 18 or 19 lots. Mr. Alanskas: The three lots that you would take out, how close would the nearest home be? Mr. Roskelly: I suggest the home would be 50 feet away. Mr. Hale: With the surrounding area being primarily RUF zoned, how do you respond to some of the concerns exhibited in some of these letters that were sent to the Planning Department about the density problems? Mr. Roskelly: I mentioned before we are sitting here with 7 1/2 acres of land and if we ultimately end up with 18 or 19 lots because of the open space, because of the flood plain, because of the open drain and the topo that we need for water storage, I suggest that when you divide 18 or 19 by 7 1/2 we will almost be at the same density of 1/2 acre lots or very close to it. I think we should also point out that several of these lots to the east, I think it is in the Livrance Subdivision, there are several of them that are deficient and are not 1/2 acre. Years ago many of these private properties originally the 1/2 acre went to the center of the road so if you took that out they would be deficient as well, but it is obvious that there have been several splits made, perhaps chaotically and creating non-conforming sites, and I do believe that this blend and nature of what we are trying to do would certainly enhance the community and not in any way cause any detriment. Mr. Hale: We are talking as a practical matter about 8 or 9 residences as opposed to 23? 15418 Mr. Roskelly: I think with 1/2 acre lots we are looking at 9 as opposed to 19 but they would have, in my mind, a road up against the east side, which would be double frontage for those persons living to the east and they certainly would not be as desirable lots. Mr. Hale: What is the means of ingress and egress to this proposed plot? Mr. Roskelly: It would be the road shown on the master drawing. Mr. Piercecchi: Is that an open drain or is that Bell Creek? Mr. Roskelly: That is an open drain, an unnamed drain. I would call it a finger of the Rouge. Mr. Piercecchi: Bell Creek is south of that? Mr. Roskelly: It is south of that and this 100 year flood plain would be part of Bell Creek. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Roskelly, you said your engineering was not complete yet. What is it that remains for you to do to have a final conclusion for a recommendation? `um. Mr. Roskelly: A conclusion actually would be whether or not we would have to tweak these. We are taking this off of certain flood plain maps and areas of that nature. When we get into the final engineering of this we go out and take an exact topography to ascertain exactly where the 100 year flood plain is and exactly where the toe of the slope is of this natural drain and that is not usually done until we get into detailed engineering plans. Mr. Walsh: I ask that because I think they are leaning towards tabling based on other comments but it would probably depend on how much more time you need, and you are telling me you need to get to the site plan. Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. I suggest we are looking at 40 foot trough through there for open space and this wetlands is approximately, and perhaps we would be moving it five feet and just tweaking it. Mr. McCann: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. Please be aware that we did read into the record all the letters that were submitted prior to the meeting. We do have those on file. So in order to make the meeting move along I 15419 would like you to try to reserve your comments to new and additional information that hasn't been provided to us at this point. Leland Ropp, 30115 Munger: My property on the site plan is 50B and 60A. The drainage creek that runs through the middle of the property also comes downstream and runs through my property connecting to the Bell Creek. I didn't get a chance to sign the petition or attend the meeting because I was out of town last week but I am opposed to the rezoning. The RUFC zoning south of Six Mile has historically been kept intact. Along Ryan Road there was a request for rezoning to R-3, which was turned down by the Zoning Commission approximately three years ago, and affirmed by the City Council, and I think the precedent has been set to keep that intact and I don't see a reason to switch at this point in time. John Bartus, 30069 Munger: I have been a resident here for 26 years. I am President of the North Livrance Estates Homeowners Association. I just want to ask the people who are opposed to this petition to stand. (Approximately 30 people in the audience stood up). We were here five years ago on a similar rezoning proposal, and this proposal was rejected unanimously by this body and also the City Council. The result was Willow Creek Estates, a model subdivision for this City. We were told then this area would remain RUF. The same arguments that we had then still apply. It would set a precedent for the area. We are very concerned about that. If we change the RUF zoning to R-3, as property becomes available in the area, and there are large lots out there, what is to prevent those from changing to R-3 and possibly R-2. That is a major concern of ours. We do not want the character of this area to be altered. It would alter the character forever and have a negative impact on the spacious, wooded environment that attracted the current residents that live here. RUF is the appropriate zoning for an area that contains running streams, ravines, wetlands, flood plains, and if the larger lots can include these features they could still provide buildable home sites. As you wisely did five years ago, we urge you to reject this rezoning petition and maintain this area as RUF. Jim Vizzaccaro, 16830 Ryan: Rather than bring up all the issues that have been brought up before, the quality of life, property values, maintenance, the precedent that has been brought up, there are issues with the DNR and I don't know how those will get resolved, my main concern is with the ditches and the flood plain. If it gets filled in, where is that water going to go? Not on my lot please. Also, if the ditches remain as they are, I think you said they would cut a retainer trough, if you put houses on there, won't there be children playing there? Do we want children being that close to that much moving water? It is kind of a safety issue 15420 it seems to me. Another issue I would like to bring up, they mentioned if they put in 1/2 acre lots they would have to put a road down the east side, which would double something, I don't remember what the term New was. Put it on the other side then it wouldn't do that. That would give you 1/2 acre lots. Initially at the meeting last week we mentioned why don't you put the road down the left side and he said then the other guy can develop the property himself. Well, yes that is a possibility but that might be a chance you might have to take. We counted about 50 people at the meeting last week, all residents who were vehemently opposed to the changing of the rezoning, and I, like those and 174 other people urge you to turn this down. Huibert Mees, 30410 Munger: My property adjoins the property in question. I second everything that was stated in the letters and stated before. However, my main concern is with the water. My property is the next property that creek crosses on its way to Bell Creek and even if the 40-50 foot wide zone is maintained, the road still has to cross that creek and because of the lay of the land that road is most likely going to drain into that creek meaning all this water is now going to be dumped into my yard. What that means for my yard and the succeeding yards down the stream, I don't know but I am very concerned about that. The quality of life in that area depends on the large size lots, the woods that are there. I hate to see that go away. I am also concerned, someone mentioned children, my lot is mostly wooded. I will have to put up a fence right on my property line to keep the children out for their own safety and my own liability. That is the cost I would incur as a result of this, which I do not appreciate, and therefore I strongly urge you all to reject this petition. Leonard Bores, 30606 Munger: My property is Lot #4, part of Willow Creek Subdivision. I back up to the flood plain. I am here representing the people living on Ryan Court, part of Willow Creek Estate Subdivision. I am Vice President of that association. The President couldn't make it tonight, and we would just like to say we are totally against this proposal. We don't like it at all. That is the complete subdivision. Harold Sieloff, 30460 Greenland: I own the property just to the south of the property being discussed. I won't read the full letter. Most of it has been talked about tonight. The residents of this area spoke out strongly against a similar rezoning of property to the west of this several years ago. At that time our elected representatives listened to our request and wisely rejected the rezoning. The positive results of that decision speaks for itself as you see the development of that property as it is today. The decision set a precedent and serves as an example of what good things are possible when cool heads and common sense prevail. Also, in my 15421 opinion, the east/west dimension of the property in question is sufficient for optimum development of the property. A denial of the rezoning request will encourage the current property owners and current or future developers to reconsider next steps. A logical action would include renegotation of property sales terms to make the development within RUFC reasonably attractive to the owners of the two lots we discussed, the ones to the west. If it takes years to reach that level of common sense and sound business judgment to reach a fair and responsible agreement, so be it. We should be under no deadline to devour our remaining natural landscape in Livonia. Approval of the rezoning would create a landlocked piece of property, which was mentioned earlier, unsuitable for additional road access and impractical for RUFC or R-3 development. I support the owner's rights to sell and develop the property. I urge you to recognize the rights and interests of the property owners in this area, and to act in their interest by rejecting this request of rezoning. Lee Davis, 30556 Greenland: My only points are I own the property directly south and slightly west of this proposed property. Right now we have a lot of problems from the Ryan Road families. Their kids have a tendency to play in my backyard, flood plain. So we have some problem there so keeping the density low would definitely be to our advantage. Roy Puckett, 31642 Grove: I have lived there for 38 years and I have been through quite 41' a few battles with developers. They seem like they just get younger. I don't know if you remember when Jake Menuck wanted to develop Nottingham, his first proposal was for 80'x120', and we fought him and pretty soon it got up to 150', and we fought him and finally he realized he wasn't going to get any place and he kept it as 1/2 acre. He said no one will buy 1/2 acre, and it is one of the nicer subdivisions in the area because it is 1/2 acre. I would hate to see you break up the RUFC and put in R-3. South of Six Mile they are all pretty much the same, and we hope you gentlemen will keep it that way. If they want 120 foot lots, why don't you try Inkster, or Westland, or Garden City. Barry Puckett, 31642 Grove: My father is always a hard act to follow. I have only lived at the address 37 years. Everyone has pretty much said what I wanted to say other than it seems to me I've heard this song before, that old familiar score. I was up here three years ago when someone down the road made the same proposal, half acre won't work, no one will buy, it will have to be fire sale time. Clearly there are people there that are enjoying it. They are very happy with it. I really don't know much more to say than everyone here knows these are zoning laws not zoning suggestions. They are there for a reason and the stability of Livonia. I don't have to tell you what a great city we have. Everyone 15422 knows it, and there is a reason for that. It is called zoning, and when you have a strong zoning law, it is there not only to enforce that the r.,. land and the building are developed properly but it is there for the most important reason, the people who live nearby because they are the ones that have to see it every day to deal with the problems, and not someone who quite honestly comes in and builds and leaves, essentially takes the money and runs. I know that is rather cynical and I hate to be that way because I know how our capitalistic system works on that sort of thing, and I am all for it, but I think we should remember the people who are there, the neighbors. That is all I really have to say. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora if you or Mr. Roskelly have anything further to say. Mr. Roskelly: In answer to the reason for not putting the road on the west side of the property, the reason for that is because of the exception. We have no ingress or egress to Six Mile to get it on the west side of the property. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-12-1-29 closed. Mr. Alanskas: I feel we have a lot of questions here with flood plains, grading, lot sizes, and neighborhoods. I would like to table this item. ,`, On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 4, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-12-1-29 by Kaftan Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Ryan Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-12-1-29 to April 15, 1997. 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 failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it #3-38-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 4, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-12-1-29 by Kaftan Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Ryan Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend 15423 to the City Council that Petition 96-12-1-29 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are smaller than the adjacent RUF zoned land areas; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is out of character with the majority of adjacent zoning districts and uses in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents the possible encroachment of smaller lot sizes in an area heretofore developed with lots which are at least one-half acre in area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Hale, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Blomberg Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-2-1 by Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection with a proposed hotel to be located on the east side of Fox Drive between Haggerty Road and the I-275/96 Expressway north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating no problems or deficiencies were found. Mr. McCann: Sir, give us your name and address. I assume you are the petitioner. Scott Edwards: I am an attorney at Plunkett & Cooney, representing the Marriott Inns tonight. I am mostly here to answer any questions you may have regarding this property. The use that we are proposing to use it for is a limited menu type situation where breakfast would be served and from 15424 five to nine there will be cocktails and hors d'oeuvres. There is only a prep kitchen involved. They would fix breakfast but it is not set up to be a full service restaurant. It will not be advertised as a full service restaurant. It is basically for the business guests at the Marriott. There are certainly enough restaurants around the area to provide those services. I am here tonight if you have questions, perhaps I can answer them. Mr. Alanskas: How many Residence Inns do you have in the local area here? Mr. Edwards: I don't know how many Residence Inns are located in this area. Mr. Alanskas: Do you know if they all have a Class C license to serve liquor in the rooms? Mr. Edwards: No I don't know that. Mr. Hale: Sir you are an attorney from Plunkett & Cooney. Sorry I don't recognize you. I am from the same firm so I will not vote on this. * Mr. Hale left the meeting at this time. Mr. McCann: Sir, the license you are proposing to use, is that a resort license? Mr. Edwards: Yes it is. Mr. McCann: And is that a new license from the State of Michigan? Mr. Edwards: I believe it is being taken out of escrow. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Tom Malcolm, 38952 Reo Dr.: I am part of the Quakertown Subdivision, which is directly south of this location. I have to admit I am here mainly to learn what the petitioner's proposal is because me and my neighbor, Wendy, have been involved in this whole development from day one when they first decided to rezone it and develop it. Our concern was obviously keeping the area as family friendly as possible. Obviously we were opposed to the development in the first place but as a matter of reality, we know it is here. What our concern was also with this liquor license petition, we understand there is a plan to at least build a restaurant in this complex, which I believe will be serving liquor also. At least we understand it will be. We thought that would be the only place that would, and now we understand that this facility would also like to have 15425 something on premises now. I am glad to hear it is going to be a small situation. It is not going to be a nightclub. It is not something that is �.� going to be offered to outsiders,just the guests I understand, but we are still concerned about the possibility of offering a liquor license and then having the possibility of patrons obviously that visit and then leaving and possibly driving intoxicated, which could cause some danger for the people in Quakertown possibly because of the traffic situation, and we don't know where those people will be accessing when they leave the facility. So we as residents are concerned when a liquor license is applied for because again we think that is contrary to a family-friendly type city and having another liquor license on premises is just one mark against a family-friendly concept. Mr. McCann: Sir, how many seats will there be in the restaurant? Mr. Edwards: The restaurant itself is broken up into two sections. One is the Hearth Room, which is a fireplace with chairs put around the general area. It is not set up per se as a restaurant. The other room is a meeting room to the side which on occasion could be used for business meetings and would have food available, such as breakfast in the morning, and I believe if you have the floor plan for the first floor in front of you, you can see the area itself is quite small which would be available for restaurant and liquor service. Mr. McCann: Are you getting an entertainment license with the resort license? Mr. Edwards: I do not believe so. It has not been applied for. Mr. Malcolm: Just remember there are plans, unless they have been changed recently, for two more hotel facilities as well as this restaurant. My thought is probably a lot of people will be coming here in the future asking for liquor licenses when those are proposed to be built. So again, think about the future for this whole complex. Wendy Bernard, 38911 Lapham: Again, we have come before you in the past. At the July 25, 1995 study meeting Mr. Alanskas asked the developer whether a restaurant was being planned for the Residence Inn. This was prior to the other two hotels going in where the office buildings had been scheduled. The developer replied that no restaurant was planned. Again, I echo our neighbor's believe that two Class C licenses in that small of an area, the proposed upscale restaurant which at this point is unnamed, we were told by the developer would be serving liquor and would be an upscale restaurant. I guess I am not specifically opposed to the food service. This is a Residence Inn, supposedly it will have kitchenettes where people can make their own food but I am opposed 15426 to the fact that the liquor would be served there. I spoke with a Marlene Landry. She had written a letter dated October 17, 1995. It �..� was to the City Council. She was not able to come tonight but she did give me permission and asked me to read one paragraph in here, and it was from Marlene Landry 16124 Swathmore Lane. She said while I do not take offense to another restaurant being placed in the area, I share the concerns that more establishments serving alcohol may be closer to my home. My concern lies in the possibility that families who enter and leave Quakertown many times during the day or night would experience increased exposure to vehicles with drivers that could be possibly intoxicated. I also worry that these persons might also chose to use Quakertown to get to Five Mile Road from Six Mile, which is impossible at this point in time. Although this seems not a likelihood for most motorists, how does one predict the pattern for an intoxicated individual. Even now with the development, I know in speaking to this whole project our concerns with the traffic have been seriously realized. It takes even longer to get out. I understand that but I counted 20 cars one day that are now coming through. Since they can't get through they come through the sub, they go out to avoid Six Mile and Haggerty. This is just more, and if you are talking about the possibility of more alcohol, again, the project has been approved. There is nothing we can do about that but we can make it a safer project. That is all we are asking for. Mr. Alanskas: Have you ever been to a Residence Inn? Ms. Bernard: Yes we have stayed at one. Mr. Alanskas: Did you find when you were there was a lot of liquor there? Ms. Bernard: We don't drink liquor so we don't know. We stayed at a Residence Inn because we had facilities to cook our own meals. Mr. Alanskas: Let me draw some picture for you. Three years ago I stayed at one in Cincinnati, and I had my wife and my daughter and two grandchildren. When I got in my room they said tonight you are in luck. We are having dinner for everybody here free, and we are serving beer, wine and pop, and it is a very small room, and I couldn't even call it a restaurant, and there was not a lot of liquor being purchased there and the children had a great time and there was no offense to anybody. I think in the Residence Inn you have extended stays, you have business people, and it is my opinion, I don't think you will have a problem with alcohol as you would in a restaurant where there are 200 people 15427 drinking and dancing. I think in this particular instance you don't have that much to be concerned with in regards to alcohol, in my experience. r.. Ms. Bernard: But with the other two hotels that are not Residence Inns, are those guests also going to be able to have access to this area or are they going to have their own little restaurants that were not going to be restaurants? Mr. Alanskas: I think it will be just for the people staying there. Ms. Bernard: Whatever your wonderful experience was, all I know is we were told there was not going to be a restaurant at that meeting, and now there is. Mr. McCann: I believe at that meeting there were two restaurants proposed besides the Marriott Inn. Mr. Piercecchi: You brought up traffic on Six Mile Road. We know that is a problem, and at that meeting, if memory serves me correctly, we suggested you contact the Traffic Commission in Livonia. Was that ever done? Ms. Bernard: They basically said no we could not get any signs put out that said "No Thru Traffic". That was one of our suggestions so people would not be cutting through. They said no we could not do that. They said no they would not put a light there because that would further back up the traffic on Six Mile because there was already one at 275 and Six Mile and they didn't feel with the utilization of the traffic at Six and Haggerty and the light at Six and 275, that it would be even worse. We followed up on all the areas we could have, and there just wasn't any relief anywhere. There is a light planned at Haggerty and Country Club Drive, which is south of Penn, which is our other access onto Haggerty. We have the two ingress and egresses but that is not going to help unless it is timed properly. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was #3-39-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 4, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-2-1 by Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection with a proposed hotel to be located on the east side of Fox Drive between Haggerty Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby 15428 recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-2-1 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the Marriott Residence Inn development for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 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. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate what Mr. Alanskas said. Restaurant is really a poor word to describe what the Residence Inns have. I have traveled enough and have stayed in enough and they are rather restrictive to who they serve and how they serve, and their general size, so I am obviously supporting this motion. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Walsh, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg ABSTAIN: Hale Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. * Mr. Hale re-entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-2-3 by Marvin Walkon requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 15429 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating their offices have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following problems or deficiencies were found. 1. The utilization of a Class C license will require the City Council to waive the 1000 foot separation requirement. 2. The proposed signage on SPA-6 would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the excess number of wall signs. 3. The Michigan Barrier Free Design Rules require that five (5) barrier free parking spaces are installed at this site. SPA-1 shows only four (4)barrier free parking spaces are provided. With respect to the barrier free spaces, the plan has now been revised to now comply with the correct number of barrier free parking spaces. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Drane: I am an architect working for T. Rogvoy Associates. My address is 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills. I am representing Marvin Walkon and Champps Restaurant. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us why the move? Mr. Drane: Tonight I have with me Scott Dice from Champps. I have Gary Jorma. I think I can answer your question by simply saying that to give up some of the site amenities that the other site had, Champps had chosen to take the location of the site that had better visibility and better traffic counts. Mr. Piercecchi: John, hasn't that little piece of OS been rezoned to C-2? Mr. Nagy: It was petitioned for by that property owner and while it was recommended for a change of zoning at the Commission level, the City Council chose not to rezone it at this time. Mr. Piercecchi: Its a shame. It would be nice if you could purchase that. Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to ask Mr. Jonna a question. 15430 Gary Jonna, Executive Vice President of Jonna Realty Ventures, 1533 N. Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills: Now Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Jonna would you explain to us, if you could, the area that you are going to be leaving, what you have planned for that area. Mr. Jonna: Sure, I brought a board along. We earlier established when we first began the area for the 20 screen theater, the focal point of the site. Obviously we have the boulevard entry and the rather extensive pedestrian plaza. This is approved and going forward with construction. We also have the J. Alexander's Restaurant, which this body approved, and they will begin construction in spring as well. This is the former Champps site, and it is still the same basic configuration except in terms of our updated master plan this area has been earmarked for a hotel. This is the subject site we have been discussing, the Champps petition at this location immediately south of that boulevard entrance. The northwest corner of the site is proposed for additional general and specialty retail. I can't say too much about what is happening. We expect an announcement on that very soon. This area would be about 40,000 sq. ft. of general and specialty retail. I can tell you that whatever uses are earmarked will be of an entertainment nature and will be in keeping with that theme of the entertainment campus. So this is the same basic plan, the position of the theater, the boulevard, the plaza, the roadway, the landscape, most of the common areas have been preserved. From the plans you saw several months ago this was specialty retail. That is now the Champps location. The former Champps location along the pond now proposed for the hotel, and again this was always planned for general and specialty retail. We also at one time showed the hotel at this location but basically the only change is the Champps going from here to here and the hotel by the pond. Mr. Alanskas: The west side of the new Champps area, how many feet from the restaurant to the theater if you are going to have dinner and want to walk to the theater? Mr. Jonna: About 240 feet. Mr. Alanskas: So it is a lot shorter to get to the theater than where the old spot was. Mr. Jonna: There were several reasons, Mark didn't elaborate, and again there were some we discussed, but there were several reasons that Champps wanted to move to this location. Obviously Haggerty has high traffic counts and a nice corridor corner but this provides superior visibility, which is important to their business. In addition, this is the grandiose 15431 entry with the tree-lined boulevard and pedestrian plaza. This is a congregational area that will attract a lot of attention and be an area •.► that will be very dense with people and activity. Also, if you notice they had a very contoured parking field and as you can see they might have a much more conventional parking field at this location. I think it was several issues, number one being visibility, proximity to the theaters, and the cross pollination that occurs. The congregational aspect of the plaza are very important, and then this being a major entrance to the site. I think those are a few of the reasons. Mr. Alanskas: The berm that goes across Haggerty, that is what 40 ft. wide? Mr. Jonna: That is 16 feet wide. Mr. Alanskas: How high is it? Mr, Jonna: It is approximately 4 to 5 feet. It varies at various intervals because the road is sloping somewhat. Mr. Alanskas: Cars going up and down Haggerty, can they see the entire restaurant? Mr. Jonna: Yes. If you want more detail on that Mark has a board on that. The finished floor of the restaurant is about 807.25 at entry level, and that grade that I spoke of is about 815 and we are at about 830 plus or minus a half a foot. So still even with the lowest roof line, it graduates up in increments of five or eight feet higher, and Mark can show you that. Mr. McCann: Looking at this site plan, I don't see how you are going to put a hotel on that corner. There is no parking for a hotel? Where would they park? Mr. Jonna: There is a parking field at this location here, which is significant. There is also the barrier free parking that parallels the western elevation of the building. Then there is additional parking located north of the site. It is actually quite nicely surrounded by parking on three sides. Mr. McCann: Do you have the size of the hotel? Mr. Jonna: It is still preliminary. When it comes forth formally we will be happy to elaborate but it is still in the planning stages, and we haven't decided. Obviously everyone knows we are talking to several hotels and we want the best fit and most aesthetically pleasing that will compliment the theaters and restaurants. 15432 Mr. Drane presented the elevation plans. 'r•r Mr. McCann: Do you have a site plan for us from the road? Mr. Drane presented this site plan. Mr. Piercecchi: Where will your sign be located? Mr. McCann: They will be coming back for signage. Mr. Alanskas: Where is the patio going to be? Mr. Drane: Facing Haggerty Road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-2-3 closed. Mr. Piercecchi: On June 18, 1996 both J. Alexander's and Champps Restaurants were found to be in harmony with the surrounding area and an approving resolution for the development from the Planning Commission was submitted to the City Council. Separate resolutions regarding waiver use for utilizing a Class C license were also approved and a recommendation submitted to Council. At a later date Council Now approved the entire site plan, which included the theater. Since this petition only requests maneuvering and the Council has approved the site plan and already approved this establishment that this body and the Council already approved, I find no objections to this petition and as such I will offer an approving resolution. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #3-40-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 4, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-2-3 by Marvin Walkon requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-2-3 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked sheet SPA-1 dated 2/19/97 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 15433 2) That the Landscape Plan marked sheet SPA-7 dated 2/13/97 prepared by Johnson Johnson & Roy, Inc., Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be installed prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet SPA-6 dated 2/19/97 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 4) That the maximum number of customer seats to be provided is 249 seats; and 5) That all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 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 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. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-2-2 by Marvin Walkon requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have the same correspondence as on the previous petition. 15434 Mr. McCann: Again, this had prior Council approval for the Class C liquor license at the other location. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-2-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #3-41-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 4, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-2-2 by Marvin Walkon requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed full service restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-2-2 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 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 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Fox Creek Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Fitzgerald Avenue, in the South 1/2 of Section 5. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 15435 Mr. Nagy: We have received letters from the Traffic Bureau, Fire Marshal, Parks & Recreation, all stating their departments have no objections to this request. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal, however, they will require five foot wide sidewalks to be constructed along the Seven Mile Road right-of-way to the rear of the proposed lots. Lastly, we have received a letter from Jim and Kathy McClain of 19208 Fitzgerald, Lot 43 stating: This is to express our continued concern regarding development of this property into 16 homesites. Our concern centers on the creek that runs through our property, then continues through the above petitioned property and then continues under seven mile and through the subdivision south of Seven Mile. As per our letter, sent to the Planning Commission, dated August 20, 1993, we are concerned about how development of this property will affect the flow of water through the creek. As it stands now, the flow of water immediately behind the petitioned property, which occurs at the house next to us (south) continues to be very poor and flooding occurs regularly whenever there is a rainstorm. How will development of this property affect the flow of water from Fitzgerald through Lots 42 and 43, then through the proposed property development, and then under seven mile into the subdivision south of Seven Mile? Have the builders contacted the DNR regarding the development of property in regards to the flow of the creek? The DNR is adamant about the preservation of the creek. Why isn't the creek shown on the proposed Plat Plan? Also, note, the creek shown on the proposed Plat Plan, as it cuts across Lots 40-44 on Fitzgerald, is inaccurately drawn. All of this affects the representation of the property to be developed. What is the Builder's responsibility in regards to the preservation and maintenance of the creek, as well as the impact the construction project will have on the creek East of the property being developed? What role will the Building, Planning Department, or City of Livonia have in potential problems with the creek that might result from the development of this property? It is our hope that development of this property will mean an overhaul of the creek so all existing flooding will stop. We request that the Planning Commission and other City Offices take into consideration the current and potential problems with the creek in the development of this property. Mr. Piercecchi: Is that Bell Creek John? Mr. Nagy: I think it is a branch of the Tarabusi. Mr. Piercecchi: It has water in it all the time? 15436 Mr. Nagy: There is a regular flow associated with it. Mr. Piercecchi: It doesn't show it there. It shows it dying at Lot 40. \Mr. McCann: It goes underground. Mr. Nagy: It goes in the culvert under Seven Mile and then dumps into Bell Creek. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner step forward. Sam Baki, 36700 West Seven Mile: Which is on the same property. We did an extensive study between the Engineering Department of the City of Livonia and the DNR, and due to that study we came to this conclusion to come up with this layout not to disturb the creek at all, and as you see on the original plan it shows a 40 foot easement to stay away from the creek. That is the only reason we end up with that layout. We oversized the lots, as you can see some of these lots are 90 footers, because we are trying to customize the homes so we end up with only 16 when we could have gotten 18. With respect to drainage, the drainage which has always been running through is deeper on the south side where it enters the back of Lot 13 where there is a manhole catch basin. This creek at this time some of the problems occurring from the north was because there are a lot of trees that fell into the creek. That will be cleaned up Nearbut the creek is not going to be touched, and the drainage from the new subdivision shows where some of our manholes and catch basin will be and the drainage will be completely used for that creek so the water all drains into that creek. Mr. Piercecchi: Would it be out of order to ask what type of houses and the sizes? Mr. McCann: No. Mr. Piercecchi: I notice 11,300 is the smallest lot in there. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: I was wondering if you are going to stick with the R-3B or are you going to upgrade it to R-3C, which you can because you have such big lots. Mr. Baki: We really don't want to because we are not going to be selling any lots so we will have full control of the whole subdivision. Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking about the buildings. 15437 Mr. Baki: We are going to keep it customized at a price range. *kelp- Mr. Piercecchi: Will it be one story, one and a half, two stories? Mr. Baki: We are going to build them three ways. The smallest which is a ranch will be 1850 sq. ft. Mr. Piercecchi: That is way above. Mr. Baki: I understand. We are just going to keep it for selling purposes. Mr. Piercecchi: If you build 1850 sq. ft., R-3B one-story is 1300 sq. ft. I just want to compliment you because I think that is great. Mr. Baki: The existing house on the property is staying. We are going to remodel it and change the entrance to face the new street. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Mr. Nagy: I would make one comment. The proprietor of this subdivision has not closed on the City property. It has recently gone through a zoning change so we will have to make our recommendation subject to. Mr. McCann: That is correct. We may want to table this. Mr. Nagy: I don't think you need to table it but I think we want to recognize the fact that the property is still owned by the City of Livonia. Kathy McClain, 19208 Fitzgerald: I wrote the letter that was read into the record. I am here tonight to again express our concern about the creek that does run through our property and we are Lot 43 and then it runs through the house next door, which would be the south Lot 42, and then it goes into this proposed property that is going to be developed, and then it continues as you said under Seven Mile into the subdivision on the other side of Seven Mile. Mr. McCann: Have you had the opportunity to see the preliminary plat? Ms. McClain: I only was able to see what was sent in the mail. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you have a copy she can have. (Mr. Nagy gave her a copy of the plat) I think you can see the natural drainage course in the southwest corner of the map. It pretty much looks uninterrupted. 15438 Mr. Nagy: It will be left undisturbed. Mr. McCann: It should not affect your property in any manner. Ms. McClain: This wasn't anything we saw. That was one of the questions I had. I did want to ask if the Planning Commission is aware of the high water levels and flooding that occur on Lot 42 and into this area whenever we have a rainstorm. Mr. Nagy: I think the Commission is aware of it and those kinds of considerations will be built into the actual subdivision improvement plans and the utility drawings, etc. What the Commission's concern tonight is the arrangement of the lots, lot sizes, the orientation of the lots to the street and also meeting all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. With respect to the size of the utilities, and the drainage, and the flow, that is really in the engineering plans that will go when the actual building construction plans are approved. Mr. McCann: Ma'am I would like to make a suggestion. You should cc your letter regarding the water problems to the Engineering Department and they can give you the identification number for the Planning Department so that it would be attached so when the Engineering Department does review these plans they can take that into consideration. Ms. McClain: Would I send a copy or would it be sent by you? Mr. McCann: It would be sent from you. Automatically they have to look at these things but if the neighbors can identify certain problems in the area, it would assist them. Ms. McClain: The other question I have, when the subdivision was built west of Fitzgerald, it had a definite impact on the amount of water and erosion problems coming again through Fitzgerald into our property and continuing on, the construction itself, the movement of the land, the removal of trees, etc., it did affect us, in fact there has been a tremendous problem across the street, and it does impact what is happening to our house. What assurance do we have that flooding and erosion problems won't escalate as a result of the fact that land will be cleared and the creek is not going to be moved or touched according to the builder, it is staying there. Our hope is something would be done with that. Mr. McCann: Again, you are getting into the engineering issues as to what happens when they develop property. The water has to go somewhere but that is in the engineering and not necessarily what we are dealing with 15439 tonight. They will have to address that. They do have to address how much water will be retained, etc. Again, there may be an inconvenience `.w but unfortunately with any development there is some inconvenience. We can't stop the property owner from developing his land. It is a question of whether it is a proper use. In this case he does exceed the zoned use at this point. He is not interfering with the drainage, therefore he is meeting the requirements we have at this time, but those engineering issues are important. As we said they should be addressed to the City Engineer. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval for Fox Creek Estates Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was, #3-42-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 1997 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Fox Creek Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Fitzgerald Avenue, in the South 1/2 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Fox Creek Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the proprietor closing on the sale of the City of Livonia property and also subject to the following conditions: 1) That a landscape plan showing the proposed treatment of the required greenbelt areas adjacent to Seven Mile Road as well as the cul-de-sac area be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to submittal of the Final Plat; 2) That a plan for the required subdivision entrance marker be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to submittal of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That no reporting City department has objected to the approval of the Preliminary Plat; and 3) That the Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable and well planned land use solution to the development of an odd shaped parcel of land. 15440 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 739th Regular Meeting held on February 18, 1997. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #3-43-97 RESOLVED that, the 739th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 18, 1997 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg ABSTAIN: Walsh, Hale Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-8-4 by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to erect a cellular tower antenna on property located at 39100 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. *9:15 p.m. - Mr. Walsh excused himself from the meeting as his firm represents AT&T. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Schoolcraft between Eckles and I-96 Expressway. The petitioner is proposing to construct a cellular tower on the property that now is the site of the Daniel A. Lord Knights of Columbus Hall. The tower would be located at the rear of the parking lot which is located at the rear of the hall and the I-96 Expressway. The cellular tower would be located behind an existing shed on the site. You would be able to access the tower through the parking lot of the hall and also there would have to be constructed a new entry drive that surrounds the tower. The tower would be 15441 surrounded by a 25'x40' chain link fence. It would be six foot high and the fenced in area would be surrounded on three sides by trees. Within the fenced in area you would have an equipment shelter which would be 200 sq. ft. in size and 8 feet in height. The tower would be a monopole type of construction. The tower alone would be 119 ft. in height. On top of that would be the antenna and mounted on the antenna sidearms would be four 12 ft. high omni antennas. The total height of the entire apparatus would be 131 ft. in height. (He presented the elevation plan) Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, any additional information? Mr. Nagy: All reporting City departments, the Fire Marshall, Inspection Department along with the Traffic Bureau, all have no objection to this proposal. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Kathleen Royal: I am representing AT&T Wireless. The only comment I really have is at the study session you asked what the construction of the equipment shelter was going to be, and I blurted out aluminum. In reality it is a prefabricated concrete. I believe it was corrected. I just wanted to make sure that was the case. Mr. Miller has done a perfect job in describing the site so we are just here to answer any questions. Anthony Amine from AT&T is here also. Mr. Hale: Counsel are you aware of anyone objecting to this proposal? Ms. Royal: No I am not aware of anyone objecting to it. The site seems to be a pretty good site for it. It is an excellent site with it being located in proximity to the expressway and Schoolcraft, and it is relatively isolated from any residential area. Mr. Piercecchi: It is unfortunate that all of our sites couldn't be as ideal as this one. I think it is an ideal site for such a tower. We are happy to see it is going to have three to four users on it too. Is that correct? Ms. Royal: I don't think there will be four but it is being planned for three users. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, we don't have anything in the ordinance at this point regarding construction of the buildings, do we, requiring brick or requiring anything? This particular building won't be seen by any public roadway but I am considering when we come up with the others. Mr. Nagy: I think this is one of the areas that is open to review in terms of your site plan approval process. As you review the building elevation plans with 15442 respect to typical traditional site plans, I think this same kind of review would apply to these buildings as well. I think you have that built into your site plan approval process. Mr. McCann: In reviewing this plans is there anything about the construction of the building that you would have any comments on? Mr. Nagy: I think they are more of an accessory in principle. They are so positioned on the property to not be that apparent to the general public. Mr. McCann: This one would be, ma'am, would be fenced in? Ms. Royal: It will be fenced in and it will be landscaped. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #3-44-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-8-4 by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to erect a cellular tower antenna on property located at 39100 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Cellular Tower Specification Package submitted by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. as received by the Planning Commission on February 11, 1997, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the new cellular facility shall be designed and constructed so as to accommodate collocation for a minimum of three (3) total users. 3) That the cellular tower be surrounded and secured by a 25'x40' six foot high chain link fence. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg ABSTAIN: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *9:22 p.m. - Mr. Walsh re-entered the meeting at this time. 15443 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on behalf of Red Lobster Restaurant, requesting approval for a ground sign for the restaurant located at 29980 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller: This existing restaurant is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Tech Center Dr. What they are requesting is to replace the existing ground sign, which is located on the right hand side of the drive into the Media Play shopping center and Red Lobster. They are replacing the existing 23 sq. ft. ground sign with a 24 sq. ft. ground sign. They are allowed one ground sign at 30 sq. ft. so this means it conforms to the sign ordinance. As you can see it says "Red Lobster" and it has their icon on top of the sign. Mr. McCann: Basically we have all reviewed this. We notified the petitioner he would not have to come in this evening since it was a conforming sign. A motion is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #3-45-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on behalf of Red Lobster Restaurant, requesting approval for a ground sign for the restaurant located at 29980 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package submitted by Metro Detroit Signs as received by the Planning Commission on February 19, 1997, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the restaurant closes. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15444 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 740th Regular Meeting ft,, & Public Hearings held on March 4, 1997 was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION \-ka... %,. ,,,,„ ,v, _ ti- \ RobertAlanskas, Secretary ()( 7 ATTEST: `z:.,-e4-- '" e:,.2. J. es C. McCann, Chairman r . jg r.. r..