Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-12-14 17346 MINUTES OF THE 797th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING `.- HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 14, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 797th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons H. G. Shane Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present. Chairman McCann as informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a petition is `. approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The 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 approval 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 becomes effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 99-10-1-19 DANIEL VETTRAINO Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-1-19 by Daniel Vettraino proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman between Pickford and Curtis Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 10 from RUFC to R-3. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 17347 Mr. Taormina We have four items, one item is an opposing petition which lists 21 signatures. Five of the signatures live within 100 feet of the property in questions for development exceeding the 20% quote needed for a Council 3/4 majority vote. There is a note attached also for review by the Planning Commission to be submitted for review and vote by City Council which reads as follows: (1) Mr. Vettraino cleared trees and land for development prior to this City Council's approval for rezoning. (2) Mr. Vettraino had trees removed that are in question as to whether or not they were on his land. (3) Certain excavations of dirt/land have re-routed the natural flow of river. Area of development is surrounded by RUFC &N.P. to the south, north and west. R-3 zoning in this area is inappropriate and overwhelmingly opposed by 90% or better of the residents who live here. We hope this Council acts with great thought for all who live in this area and not the capitalistic goals of one individual. The second item is a letter from William Craig, 20050 Milburn, Livonia, dated December 12, 1999, and reads as follows: "I write you to express my opposition to rezoning petition 99-10-1-99. I do not want this RUF property rezoned to R-3. I want RUF zoning defended. I want Petition 99-10-1-99 denied. This property is well within RUF territory. The rezoning will not be harmony with surrounding property. The petition currently has some conformance deficiencies While the proposed plan may meet most R-3 requirements, the petition should be held to RUF zoning requirements, which would still allow him to have three or four houses. Four RUF lots still is big change, still allows development, still allows profit, and still generates tax base. There could be no opposition to RUF development of the site. The proposed development of this site as R-3 is flawed. Excessive development of this site would exacerbate negative impacts such as: traffic congestion, noise, safety, loss of open space, loss of trees, increased impervious surfaces, more polluted runoff, reduced water quality and reduced air quality. The most critical impact would be to neighborhood harmony and stability. While you may say this project can be done, you better serve this community by saying it should not be done as proposed. I will be my task to have City Council say it will not be done." The third item of correspondence is an E-mail from J. Snider, 31650 Curtis, dated December 8, 1999 and reads as follows: "I am against the subject rezoning petition. The RUF zoning in my subdivision is one of the reasons I moved to Livonia 25 years ago. Now there is a petition to change the zoning of a lot that adjoins our subdivision . This petition will reduce the quality of life for the neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the residents. When the city set up its zoning laws, it had a vision of a large lots and a rural environment and I support that concept." The final item of correspondence is from the Engineering Division dated November 19, 1999, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. We would like to point out that the developer will be responsible for the extension of water main onto the sight from it's current location along the east side of Merriman Road. The following legal description should be used in connection with the property: 'The West 260 feet of the East 320 feet of the South 10 acres of the North 60 acres of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, T. 1S., R. 9 E., City of `"' Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan of Wayne County Records'. We trust that this 17348 will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Daniel Vettraino, 26390 Hidden Valley, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Basically, I had seen the Hidden Pines Subdivision and the new development, Merriman Forest. A couple of other R-3 properties are located behind and across the street from the site. One of the reasons I purchased the site is that there are other R-3 zoned properties in the area. Basically the reason I am going for R-3 is I have to bring water in from across the road which is a bit of an expense. We've got to put in roads, sewer and utilities. Economically, it is not feasible to do all of that for just for a couple of sites. Mr. McCann: This is an RUF zoned lot. It can be divided into three separate lots. Did you understand that? Mr. Vettraino: Oh yes. I understand that. It's not feasible to run all those utilities for that many lots. I was thinking something more in mind of the Merriman Forest which is just up the road. I've got the same road frontage for the sites proposed, 20 ft. longer lots. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? NONNI Mr. Piercecchi: How many lots is your latest thinking on this piece of property? Mr. Vettraino: A total of six. Mr. Piercecchi: Does that include the current building that is already there? Mr. Vettraino: Yes, with the old house that is there. Mr. Piercecchi: At first thought, when this thing was being considered I thought perhaps there could be an acceptable option in that RUF zone but however, I really took a close look at it and I really think we have a better solution and I say this even knowing that you may consider what I understand putting five lots on there in an R-4 classification. That is what I have been told. But let's look at this five lot deal. I don't see how you can get six in there anyway. Say you put five lots in there. Presuming this property would really yield only one additional lot if you did it all in RUF. You realize there that some of my mathematic indicates that if you took the 328 ft. frontage on Merriman Road and divided it into four equal segments, you would get roughly 21,382. sq. ft. of RUF land. That is 400 sq. ft. less than a half acre in order to be a legitimate RUF lot. Of course, we have many RUF lots that aren't really legitimate RUF lots. That is less than 2% off and I believe that the ZBA would grant you that little minor deal and you could put four of them in there. Granted in the five or the six lot package, you will lose some income, I realize that, because you make a profit on the house, that is your business. Let's look at the five again, but if you laid off four RUF lots bordering on Merriman Road with 82 feet width plus and 260 ft. deep you 17349 would eliminate putting roads in there. You been eliminate putting the cul-de- sac in there and you would re-coop all that money and I estimate that road has 'r. to be somewhere around 1,600 to 2,000 sq. ft. of cement and cul-de-sac and all of that. That is just my rough guess and there is a cost of improvement associated with that. You've got to put in water. You've got to put in curbs. I think you would offset the profit you would make from putting in five. I don't know about six. Those are just my comments and I would like to see you take another look at that, personally. I am speaking for only one. I think putting four lots on Merriman would keep the integrity of the RUF big lots and you wouldn't change any of the zoning there and I think it is a better package myself. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, do you own the property? Mr. Vettraino: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How long have you owned it? Mr. Vettraino:About seven months. Mr. Alanskas: You did know that when you bought it, it was RUF and you knew what the size of the lots would have to be if you wanted to build on it? Mr. Vettraino: I don't understand what you are saying? Mr. Alanskas: What I am saying is you didn't buy a pig in a poke and that you knew what you were doing when you bought it. If you didn't get the R-3 or R-4, you would still have an RUFC, correct? Mr. Vettraino:I would rather not comment on that. Mr. Alanskas: I do agree there is R-3 in the area, but there is also an awful lot of RUFC. You are asking for some more lots right in the middle of RUFC and that to me that is spot zoning. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: How much would you have to sell these homes for if you only have four half acres lots compared to the six that you want? Mr. Vettraino: Considering that old house sits on the property now, that is in need of major renovation and typically from what I understand the house is supposedly well over 160 years old. When you try to replicate the materials that need to go into that house, that house there is going to go at a loss. I just don't believe in tearing down houses because I restore houses so basically having that one go at a loss, I would say that after running the water under the road and everything, you are talking extremely high 3's or low 4's. Mr. LaPine: We have houses in Livonia on 60 ft. lots by 120 ft. that are going for $300,000 *"" to $350,000. I don't think that is an unreasonable price for a half acre lot with a nice home on it. The second question I have is when I checked the site and the 17350 letter we got this evening and I noticed the property being cleared, how come you have been clearing the property and working on the lot when you haven't r.- got any approvals? Mr. Vettraino: There hasn't been any grade work done on the property so nothing has changed in that aspect. I came into the City and was told that there is no tree ordinance. There were two gentlemen who stopped out who were called by a neighbor that came out and said that there was no tree ordinance. Any of the trees that came down were all locust trees. There were basically dead from the get-go. I saved some cherry trees and I saved all the black walnuts that were on the property. Basically I didn't take anything down that wasn't a junk tree basically. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, I have one. You are looking at half acre lots, four lots facing onto Merriman Road. You've got 260 feet in depth so they can be set back at least 100 feet from the main road which would give adequate protection to the property owners. Had you thought about that? I agree with Mr. Piercecchi that the cost of the circular road, the cul-de-sac in there would be quite expensive. Mr. Vettraino:Basically, what I said with that existing house right there, that would be cutting one of them off. If you go that route, that part of the land doesn't count because to restore that house, it is break even or a little bit of a loss situation. Mr. McCann: You wouldn't be able to keep that house if you were putting in six houses? Mr. Vettraino: Yes. Mr. McCann: You wouldn't have the minimum setbacks. Mr. Vettraino:Unless it is wrong on the site plan that I proposed. Mr. McCann: You are sure you would be able to fit that in there? Mr. Vettraino: Yes. I think the southern portion of the property, the very southern portion, that drops off pretty quick. If you are going to take it from a main road aspect, I don't think coming in off the main road, I don't think that you could count the most southerly portion of the property either. That takes a quick drop off towards the creek. Mr. McCann: There is also a problem with your original plan in that you didn't have the 30 extra feet adjacent to Merriman Road? Are you aware of that? The house abutting Merriman Road has to have 110 ft. width on it. Mr. Vettraino:I understood that is if it is part of the plat and those are no longer part of the plat or no longer proposed to part of the plat. Those are separate parcels. 17351 Mr. McCann: When you come to us and you put them all in one, we look at it as a plat. Whether it fits a subdivision design when it is brought to us in this form, is the question. Wouldn't you expect us to look at it when you put a site in? Don't you think there is a reason why we would require there has to be 110 feet along the main road like that? That it is just good planning not to put a home right up next to the road. I understand you are trying to find a way out by excluding it from the plat which you miss the point of the ordinance to begin with. The way we design the sub is to have a buffer zone there and you don't meet it. Mr. Vettraino: Unless I am looking at this plan for Merriman Forest wrong, the first two lots going in there are 80 feet also. Mr. McCann: I think we put the buffer at the rear end to protect the neighbors, didn't we Mark? Mr. Taormina: I am not aware of the specifics of that design. Mr. McCann: I can't comment on that because I think that was done because we took 15 feet and moved it by our own plan and put an extra 10 feet on the front. I think those are 90 foot. Isn't that what we did there? Mr. Piercecchi: I think so. I think Mr. Chairman in as much as you are talking about setbacks, Lot #6 only has an 18.3 ft. and is should be 35 feet. Our Chairman is correct. Your setbacks are not up to code but even that aside I think you are ;,— better off putting in an RUF. Mr. McCann: Do you have anything else before we go to the audience? Mr. Shane: I think what we are trying to say here is that if you try to use a cul-de-sac or any other type of road, which would bring access from Merriman Road, you are not going to be able to meet the ordinance unless you cut down to four lots and I for one am not going to vote in favor of a plan that does not meet the ordinance. The plan that I have seen so far does not meet the ordinance. So the only way you can meet the ordinance is with another zoning district and that is the way I would go. I looked at the property and I think you have buildable lots even if you had the access from Merriman Road. I know it falls off but I think you would have enough land so that it would be buildable. I just am not for not meeting the ordinance unless it is an awful good reason for it. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I am going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Lela Stuart, 31462 Curtis. I am the third lot off of Merriman. This project is on the northeast corner of my lot. The trees were not dead. That is a moot point, they are already gone. I have horses. If you put that many homes in on that, this is not going to be as bad as a home-a-rama but if these people are sitting out on a good night, part of my property even includes the creek, and the horses do walk through there as they go towards Rotary there will be a factor, on the deck, you 17352 are going to smell it. It is going to totally devalue the homes on Curtis. Because when we bought there, I have been living there 13 years, and that is probably a lot less than a lot of them. I bought there because of the wooded lot. I bought because there was plenty of room for the kids to grow. I can see Merriman now from my home. All of these trees were cut down at night and because that property sits higher than mine, I was in my upstairs bedroom and saw headlights coming into my door wall. We walked all the way back there to see and the trucks were working at night and dragging trees through. I did call the Engineering Department and requested them to look at it because it did not look like all those trees came from that property that were being torn down. I don't believe any of my trees were affected because my property abuts it. But some trees that were torn down were not from that lot, or that property. It is not a good idea. Margaret Chavey, 31412 Curtis. My property abuts Merriman Road from Curtis north to the property we are discussing tonight. I want to impress upon you how very much I oppose the change of zoning on this property. For 35 years we could only see a tiny part of the Edmonds house and that was in the winter time. For the past month, since the bulldozer and the tree eater were at work, I can nearly to Seven Mile and I have a full view of the Edmond's house and a part view of the brick house that is just beyond it. The very idea that this builder/owner plans to put six houses on a fraction less than 2 acres of property, is not in keeping with our neighborhood. We are not a subdivision of all similar houses where you can reach out and nearly touch your neighbors. We, young and old, are in these houses because we appreciate our individuality in houses and in land. If we had wanted a subdivision feeling we would have chosen one. Six weeks ago I had a guest visit me from Dallas, Texas and she couldn't believe, as she stood on my deck, that she was standing ion the middle of Livonia and see could see no houses. I am awfully glad she came when she did because it was a week later that the woods was torn down and the trees are gone. All of the magnificent trees, with the exception of some very valuable walnut trees have been taken from Dr. Edmond's property and I am missing trees also. Although, until I have a re-survey done, I won't know exactly how many. In consideration of the future, we who live on RUF property are not about to stand in the way of smaller cuts of our land even to half acres, if this is really desired. But we do object strenuously to the idea that you would chose to take away our rural and urban farm designation and allow builders to put micro-subs on R-3 land so that they can make more money. In all sincerity, I ask you to vote no on the change of the zoning. Ken Kron, 31694 Curtis, I have lived in Livonia 41 years. I was born here. I used to walk through those woods to school. In Livonia, as you well know, our forests are diminishing. We are losing them at a rapid rate due to development. Mr. Vettraino, I am the man that passed the petition against this rezoning. I knocked on probably 22 doors. Twenty one people not only signed this petition but they were angry. They were mad. Their reasons ranged from him clearing the land, the trees without any prior approval from the City Council for this rezoning. I heard a lot of, you know I've lived here a long time. Livonia is very quaint, quiet place and people want to move. People told me that they want to leave 17353 now because the invasion is coming. The developers are coming. The homes are coming. You know St. Mary's Church went up across the street. I really �`- don't know how that one got by us except I know on that side of Merriman it is not RUF. But St. Mary's Church also does not belong there. It does not fit in. As far as Mr.Vettraino saying that the old farm house was going to be a break even point, I've got to believe that that house will be bulldozed in a minute because it will stand out like a sore thumb. It is not going to fit in with any new development that goes in there. Especially the people that buy the houses that he plans on developing. It is just not going to fit in. It would be so much easier just to bulldoze that house and use that lot for new development also. RUF, I mean we are to the north. We are to the south. We are to the west, nature preserve to the west. He just wants to plop it right in the middle. I don't understand how it can even be a question. I don't even know. It kind of reminds me of a cake with frosting. When the kids come and they keep taking their fingers and taking a little frosting and tasting it and tasting it and pretty soon the cake is ugly because there are so many fingerprints in it. Rotary Park, that whole area is just a beautiful place. It wasn't two months ago, I had a deer in my back yard. Not because that deer belonged there but because that deer was pushed out from some other area of development. I think traffic is a strong issue here. We have a new subdivision going up to the north on the east side. We have St. Mary's Church, which, I don't know if you know it but when they congregate, the cars are parked every which way to pack in every available spot that is there. Now with this new section of the new church, I can only imagine the new church is three times the size, traffic is going to quadruple. They rent this thing out for banquets, parties, weddings, whatever. I just see it as a big traffic issue also. What are we going to have to do? Are we going to have to put in a five lane highway down Merriman? I knocked on these peoples doors. I talked with these people. They are mad. They are angry. They don't understand. I talked with one lady here tonight and she said it was already a done deal. I said no it's not. It's not a done deal until the City Planning Commission hears it, until they vote on it. I am impressed by what I heard so far from the Planning Commission and the alternative plan that is being proposed by a couple of the members here. We are not greedy people. We are not the kind of people that run around with their noses in the air. These are people that have horses. They have tractors. We cut down trees. We walk in the woods. We rake our leaves. We clean the river from branches so the river runs smooth. These are people that have been there a long time. I didn't even walk to all the houses. I knew I only needed 20% of people that lived within 100 feet of the proposed development. I got everybody and I said that is enough. I don't need to bring here a thousand names. But I do need to bring here a sense of urgency. The urgency of whereas we need to protect what little forestry we have left in Livonia. May it be whatever kind of tree it is, walnut, willow, whatever, we don't consider them junk. They are trees. These were living trees. I vehemently oppose this proposed development. I am not opposed to him putting up a couple of homes through an alternative plan. I am definitely opposed to a cul-de-sac to an unnatural development, not fitting in with the conformation of our neighborhood. He is a Farmington Hills resident. He is not going to live there. I think that is also an issue. That farmhouse will not stand and there are a lot of other issues I can bring up but I am not going to. I 17354 can tell you that I bought my house five years ago because of the lot. Because of the land, I have three kids, and we love that lot. I have never been able to see �.. Merriman and I am three houses from the end. Now I can see the cars traveling through. I got mad because the land was cleared without any prior information to me. All of a sudden one day it is there and the next day it is gone and I didn't understand why. So I am just trying to get an understanding. I've never done anything like this before. I just figured I am going to buy this piece of land in Livonia and I am going to sit on my piece of land in Livonia and just live there because I love it there. I love Livonia. I love the trees. I love the neighbors. We've got great neighbors. These are people that care about their neighborhood. Mr. Alanskas: I've just got one question. You said we cut done trees. What do you mean by that? Mr. Korn: Branches, when trees die. Mr. Alanskas: You said trees. You mean branches not a tree. Mr. Korn: We cut down dead trees. We maintain our land. When trees fall over and they die we clean up our yard. We take care of our yard. If a tree falls in the creek or in the river, we pull it out. We clean it up. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Do you have any last statement then? Mr. Korn: That is it. Please vote against this petition. Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn. I am here to ask that petition 99-10-1-19 be denied. I already submitted a letter. I don't want to cover all of that over again but I do want to bring something else to the mix. I want to tell you that I am upset and disappointed by this petition like I have been with similar RUF rezoning petitions. I live one half mile away. I do not live on Curtis but it is just as important to me what happens to RUF down the road as it is next to me. I believe that that appreciation of RUF is wide spread through this community. I have heard many reasons why this petition should not be approved. Each individual reason is important. When we gather them all together in one package, they make our position against this petition very strong. I wish to add something else to this package. I want you to consider the impervious surface problem of this project as proposed. The impervious surface being the amount of rooftop and transport surface, sidewalk, driveway and road surface that does not absorb water. Now we have one rooftop and a partial asphalt driveway. This project will add much more impervious surface which will only add to our mounting water quality problems. Water problems that we are paying taxes to correct. Problems of paying higher taxes to correct in the near future. At this time we have a disharmonious development. This does not have to be. We can do better. We can start by reducing the problem by maintaining our RUF zoning. To continue using this low density land base will only lead to higher 17355 costs for us to correct our water problems. Higher taxes to pay for those costs and if we are not successful, the ultimate decline of this community. We can make improvements in the way we do things or we can continue to make poor planning decisions. We must plan for a better tomorrow, not just for the few to profit today. I did at the beginning of my statement say that I was upset. I am so much upset about this particular proposal added to the other ones that I have been attending that there is an interest in this community to form the RUF defense coalition. To share these very kind of thoughts and a larger format to provide a more united front in defense in RUF in this community. I am sure that we will have more people calling me up soon. I have attached to my written statement a report on Impervious Surface Technical Dry but it is at the point and why I wanted to add this to the package. Also I wanted to add that there is a management study of the Bell Branch of the Tarabusi Creek Watershed. That is the Tarabusi Creek that this project is next to. This report that City of Livonia is deeply invested in is how are we going to correct our problems. It gives a lot of detail on how bad things are things are only going to get worse. Loss of RUF, especially this one, on the edge of the flood plain only exacerbates our problem and I would like to bring that detail up, that green line is the flood plain edge. That flood plain edge will probably drift into that property over the next 10 and 20 years. It is not going to get higher. It is going to get lower. So there will be a problem with whatever lot is developed on the southern edge of that property. That is a detail. I am sure you can get one of these copies from Bob Beckley, the Director or Public Services, but I will submit the other report to the secretary. Thank you. Pat Motsinger, 31629 Hillbrook, I am in Lot 28 in the R-3 property. I just have one comment to make and from my neighbors. When we moved into this area, we found ourselves blessed that we could back up to this RUF area and that I have woods and park area behind me for my children to live in. Although I don't live in the RUF, the people that live in that subdivision and border up to it, consider ourselves very blessed that we can share with these people this wooded area and more rural environment. We are all very unhappy with this proposed development. Thank you. July Snider, 31650 Curtis. I too an opposed to this petition. I don't feel that the number of homes that are going to be put into this area is in harmony with the surrounding area. I appeal to you, the Planning Commission, to put stop to it. I also would like for to consider this, and perhaps you have already considered it in the past, is it possible that Livonia could come to a point where there are too many people for the amount of services that we could possibly provide. Too many homes squeezed into too small a space. Not just this RUF space that we are talking about tonight but in Livonia, in its totality. My son now lives in downtown Detroit and it is a big shock to me when I go down to visit him that in some ways I think they now have more vacant land within the city limits of Detroit than we presently have here in Livonia and how they got to that vacant land with their urban renewal and tearing down of old homes. We don't want to go down that path. We don't have to go there and I appeal to you, the Planning Commission to not just no to this petition, which is completely unreasonable and inhumane to the people who live in this area but to other petitions similar to 17356 it in the future. You would be the heroes. The end of the millennium. The ones who stop this overbuilding. Thank you. Steven Rooker, 18585 Merriman Road. I live directly north of the proposed development site. I also oppose the rezoning of that parcel for several reasons. The first reason, my grandfather purchased that house from the City of Livonia in 1955. My family has been there going on 45 years. When he purchased that property, he bought 12 acres there and the City Council of Livonia probably, in a room similar to this, over the years decided to expand that Rotary Park with the feeling brought forth to the people that it would preserve a natural wilderness environment for the citizens of Livonia and the people that live around there and that property was taken back as to wetlands and park expansion etc. I was not even born at that time. I purchased the property two years and was ecstatic to be able to have that type of environment in Livonia. So I think the Commission should consider preserving the wilderness atmosphere that your predecessors had laid down and if they felt if was a good idea, I think it is something we should continue with. I don't feel that the citizens of Livonia are going to benefit in anyway. I don't think the Commission could benefit in anyway. The only person who is going to benefit is the developer and I think we need to think about the citizens and what the City Council and the City of Livonia has provided its citizens in that rural zoning there. Thank you. Rebecca Quackenbush, 31462 Curtis. I also live in the house where the horses are. I am the main person who feeds them and I have lived there as long as I can remember. ,,,` When I feed the horses, I can look out and see Merriman Road until not too long ago. Maybe he thought because there were no leaves on the trees that they were dead, I don't know. I played around the creek and I have played by those trees. They were alive. My horses were spooked that night that we saw the bulldozers going and I know if they build some more that my horses may even get out because they are so scared of it all. The people will not like having the horses there because of the smell. They may think it is probably cool because we have horses there but they won't like it when they go outside. It is just not going to be good at all. I have lived there and it has just been perfect and isolated and everything and this is just going to turn it upside down. Thank you. Terry Snider, 31650 Curtis, that is Lot 6 in Marvin's Gardens which adjoins this property to the south. I am opposed to the petition as it stands. Some of the counter proposals that the Commission has recommended which included four lots, RUF, a little bit undersized. I am against that. Three lots, if you do a little math on the house that is there, if you leave 128 foot lot frontage on Merriman for that house that will only give you your setback for the adjoining house then 100 foot lot and then another 100 foot lot so you would have three RUF lots there. The one to the south with a flood plain is going to get larger and you have an elevation issue. That house then could be towards the northern part of the property line if it is a 100 foot lot. It would blend in better with the neighborhood, it what I am trying to say. With RUF to the south, our entire subdivision, there is RUF to the north of this property. I don't think we should take, like Kenneth said, scratch `"' right out in the middle of it and put some smaller lots in. Thank you. 17357 Meg Anderson, 31634 Curtis. I am the fifth parcel in Marvin's Gardens. I am really concerned about the nature of where these lots will be going in packing six in. The creek r.. back there is a dynamic changing environment. We have lived there for about five years. We bought because it was beautiful and it was peaceful. My husband and I have enjoyed, and my children, walking back there amongst the creek. It is very interesting to see how the borders change. When you have a mature stream environment where it will meander back and forth because you have more of a flat area. When we have periods of heavy rainfall, then the rain comes whooshing down and then changes the course of the creek. That is fine. That is what a creek is and one of the reasons there is a lot of land surrounding and embracing that creek is to allow that creek to meander back and forth. When you look at this rectangle of land where this subdivision would go, it does not show that there is a pretty dramatic fall off It also doesn't show that there is a huge log jam that must be maybe at least 30 feet wide and it is changing the northern most course of that creek. Where the creek wants to go around now and gets close to encroaching on the back of where the back of this subdivision is. I would hope that as a tax payer, my tax dollars are not going to go to a lawsuit 10 years down the road from someone who has bought this parcel of land and son of a gun, the land is pretty unstable in areas, and this house is sliding and someone will say why was this house allowed to be built. And yes, he has graded. There is a lot of dirt and he has a retaining wall. I believe it is staked burlap. Mr. McCann; Main, we have to stick with the zoning issue and whether or not it is proper. Whether or not he has graded the property, is an issue with the City Building Department. Our concern right now is, is it proper to allow this subdivision to go in there and is it good in the area? Mrs. Anderson: I think basically the lots would way too narrow and way too small and really would not be in keeping with what is directly around it. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I don't see anybody else. I am going to close the Public Hearing but I will give the petitioner one last opportunity to speak.. Mr. Vettraino: I just wanted to address a couple of issues that were brought up. First of all, I have to go back on the trees that were cut. The trees that were cut were half dead or dead. I never said that I wouldn't bring trees in. The trees that were cut were Locust trees and believe me I don't plan on replacing them with Locust trees. It will be a lot better trees than that and more of them. Number two, as far as the house being torn down, I have already put in over $5,000 worth of boiler system in the house. Brand new windows are on order to be delivered. We have already tapped the house to sewer and natural gas, so the house is not going anywhere. I don't have intentions of tearing it down. No grade work has been done on the property. If you want send an engineer out, you can see dirt because of the machines that were used for taking the trees down, a bull dozer has never been on the property and actually, as far as cutting trees down in the middle of the night, the guys started well before 8 o'clock in the morning and now it being winter, it does get dark early. We weren't trying to do anything hiddenly. The issue of more trees coming out of there than what were on my 17358 property, I don't see why I would want to pay to have somebody else's trees cut down and dragged out of there. At the very beginning, there were issues about �.. water problems, and at the very beginning of this meeting there was something said about the Livonia Engineering Department didn't have, per se', any problems with this site. I didn't hear anything about water problems being brought up. The issues as far as spot zoning goes, once again Hidden Pines, Merriman Forest, there are a couple of other RUF 3's in there that are completely surrounded by RUFC. So I don't see how mine could just be spot zoning when it is all around it. That is about all I have to say at the moment. Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you. A motion is in order. Mr. Alanskas: There have been a lot of times when we have taken RUFC and given lesser zoning but in this particular instance, I think that should stay RUFC and for that reason I will give a denying resolution. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously denied, it was #12-211-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-10-1-19 by Daniel Vettraino proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Pickford and Curtis Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 10 from RUFC to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-1-19 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will change the character of the subject area; 2) That the proposed zoning district is inconsistent with adjacent zoning in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are smaller than the prevailing lot sizes in the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the continued use of the subject property for low density residential purposes in conformance with the recommendation of the Future Land Use Plan. 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: Is there any discussion? Mrs. Koons: I appreciate all the residents coming and speaking. I heard their voice about their property and its impact on their property in the larger scope. I have been considering this from another angle myself which is I think Rotary Park is one `"' of our most natural land sources that everyone in the City can enjoy. I know a lot of the Boy Scout Troupes, a lot of the senior citizens, and I know there are 17359 bird watching and there are a lot of things and so for me, your arguments were very compelling, I think even in the larger scope of the use of Rotary Park and I \.. would hate to see that natural site compromised at all. Thank you. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the above resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a resolution against the rezoning. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda. ITEM #2 PETITION 99-11-08-28 MILLENNIUM PARK, L.L.C. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-8-28 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt and Inkster. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a commercial building on one of the outlots that was approved along with the entire Millennium Park development. The subject site was identified as "Outlot A" on the original approved site plan. The submitted Site Plan shows that the proposed building would be 16,400 sq. ft. in size and would be located almost Nowdirectly north of the Home Depot. The new building is labeled "Retail I" on the plan. The petitioner has explained that this building is a spec unit and could possibly be occupied by two tenants, however, a single user is preferred. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated November 16, 1999, which reads as follows: "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. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The next item is a letter from the Division of Police, dated November 19, 1999, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed plans submitted for the Millennium Park, building I. I have no concerns with respect to the site plan of the building. I do have concerns in regards to the location of the private road/drive immediately east of the captioned building. The conceptual site plan indicates the drive slightly offset from the over pass, which is directly across from it. The anticipation is that this private drive will carry a large portion of the traffic, which will access Millennium Park; based on it being four - five lanes across. With such a large volume of traffic, I believe it would be in both the developer and city's interest to have the roads directly in-line. Having the roads in-line will help to reduce any conflict by vehicles traveling two abreast while accessing the site or exiting from it onto the overpass. The current plans may hinder the drivers in the curb lanes being cut off by other drivers in the left lane that do not veer left while 17360 traversing the intersection. In review of the plans, I noted a large green belt to the west side of the road. It odes not appear that it would create any major New changes in the plans to have the private drive curve slightly further west before it meets eastbound Schoolcraft. This change would not need to effect the private road intersection, which is further south within the development." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The third item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated November 29, 1999, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request of November 15, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. For our consideration, the following issues are being brought to our attention. (1) Parking for this site requires 105 spaces. The Michigan Barrier Free Rules require that five barrier free spaces be provided for the required 105 spaces. The proposed plan indicates that only four barrier free spaces are to be provided. (2) No building section indicating the types of building construction material was provided. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. The final item of correspondence is a letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Department, dated December 9, 1999, and reads as follows: " This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on the following. (1) If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius Neu, up to forty-five feet wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Want to tell us a little bit about your project? Mr. Drane: Sure. I am very pleased tonight to be able to present this Building "I" to you. It is 16,400 sq. ft. located on what we call Out parcel "A" when we presented the overall concept to you almost a year ago. As you can see there has been tremendous progress made on the site. Paving is down, the curbing is in and a lot of the berming has started. You can see the Meijer's steel is up. The Home Depot building is enclosed. This is what I would call the third phase of our project. To develop this first out lot. As the staff pointed out, we meet or exceed all of their ordinance requirements and we have no objections to the staffs comments about the turning radiuses and adding the barrier free parking space. I think those are all great comments and I do have some embellished drawings. I know everything black and white is hard to read. If I could show them to you, it might resolve some of the questions you may have. Building "I" is north of the Home Depot building. Retail "H" has yet to be determined. As you recall, we call this the 140,000 building because of the limit on the size of the building and the amount of tenants. Building "I" is right down here, and this is the Jeffries Freeway and the service drive. The alignment of the driveway 17361 with the overpass is right here. The pond and the fountains are on this side. We still have the entry features which you will see in further detail later on, the Nos. first part of next year. We still have the same landscape features. Everything around the building will remain identically the same. The curb cut which aligns from the front drive of Home Depot to the front here which takes us right into this portion of the site. The service drive winds up in the back here. As the Fire Marshal points out, he is looking for a certain turning radiuses which I am sure are met on this plan. Basically that is it in a nutshell for the plan. The buildings, as you know, we are looking for a village concept. You know the Meijer's concept and the architectural elevations as they are developed, turn that concept into the Home Depot which turned into our 140,000 sq. ft. building. I would like to point out on the facades is that we have taken a lot of the elements that were in the village concept and have applied them to the architecture of this building. There are three different colors of brick. We have split face masonry units to add some texture and masonry to the bases of the columns here. We picked up some of the seam metal roofs on this building because it is so small. We wrapped the entire building with a metal mansard roof for screening instead of providing individual screening for the roof top units, which gave it kind of a nice consistent four-sided look to the building. We added a couple of what I would call village elements, on the corners of the buildings which is on the northeast corner and I have one on the southeast corner of the building which faces back towards Home Depot. I know that there was some concern at the study session which I could have addressed them about, the village doesn't look villagey enough. The problem is that the buildings out there are so big we are able to take those other buildings and stick them on the facades to break up that big expansive of what we call the big box retailers. On a small box like this, I had very little opportunity to be able to do that. What we did do was create some of these elements in a smaller fashion to bring consistency to all of the architecture on this site. That is it. The building is intended to be a multi-use building. We don't have any tenants for it and when I say multi-use, it is going to have some smaller stores in there. We have almost a 3,000,000 sq. ft. development out there and this building here is intended to provide services that the other retailers cannot provide to that amount of square footage out there. If you have any questions, Marvin Walkon is here, he can answer some questions. Tom Goldberg, Marvin's partner is here. Mr. Piercecchi: Some of the designs of the streetscape has changed and you gave some explanation of why you changed the big boxy look instead of the streetscape look because of the dimensions. I don't know if that is really that accurate but of more importance, I would like to know, I and others were led to believe that the Millennium project would be structured to prevent customer loss in the Wonderland and Plymouth Road areas by not permitting small tenant establishments, small strip mall concepts is what I am talking about. It was under my understanding that each outlet would be occupied by a single user out lot not multiple as shown and this unit, obviously, you show four. I was under the impression that all the out lots were going to be one tenant. Because the maximum number was 13, I believe, that was going to go in there and when you start counting out lots five and six and Meijer's and Borders, it seems to me we had thirteen and now you are adding more units into that package which we 17362 discussed earlier. I think the minutes show those numbers. I think Mr. Alanskas was clever enough to bring the minutes of that meeting and perhaps he *law will read those areas. Why the change in concept? Why not the one tenant concept? Speaking for myself, I was under the impression that is all it would be. Now you are looking at small strip malls and they will compete. The big chains will not compete with the retail stores at Wonderland. A lot of people signed off because of that. I don't see why you can't just have one tenant in there and go with the original concept as I was led to believe. Mr. Drane: Marvin I am sure can add to that. My understanding of the way the development was structured was that, we have these three outlots here. They are always left as open space. I didn't know personally that there was a limit of tenants on this unit right here. I know there was some great discussion about what we call the medium size boxes that would limit these tenants in here to five tenants and I believe that is 140,000 sq. ft. Mr. Piercecchi: That's right. 28,000 for each one of those tenants. These tenants right here you are trying to put four people into 16,000 sq. ft. Mr. Drane: It could be even more than four. Mr. Piercecchi: It could be even worse than that. Mr. Drane: We designed it so there could actually be up to eight tenants in there. There ;s- could be two or there could be one. We don't have a tenant for that as this point. What I am trying to say is that the tenants that will go into Building I are not necessarily the ones that would have one unit in a regional area. Certainly we're not going to have a Linen's & Things two miles down the street because this satisfies the market, however, a coffee shop could go in here and also could locate two miles away. These are uses that can repeat over and over again. Mr. Piercecchi: Actually, I thought a restaurant was going in here. Mr. Drane: In here? As I recall, these outlots were left blank and they were just called future development or future outlots. I am not trying to be argumentative I am just trying to go through the concept that this is a single building that may have multiple tenants in it. I see Marvin standing up here and can help answer some of those questions. Marvin Walkon: I want to explain, before Mark continues, our agreement was not on the out lot. There was no agreement on the outlots. We have been encouraged by many people to have less restaurants. This building is not a strip center. We are building 3,000,000 sq. ft. There will be thousands of employees in this center. There will be tens of thousands of shoppers in this center so in order to be helpful to Ashley who is building one building that is 765,000 sq. ft. so that their employees, and I think there will be 800 employees, will have a place to go to such as a bakery, coffee shop, maybe a sandwich shop or coney island. Every person that works in that center is not able to go out to a restaurant and spend $14.00 or $15.00 for lunch. Many people want to spend $4.00 for lunch 17363 so the purpose of this was to help the center to make people that were working in the rear be able to stay within the center. To give you an idea, and Mark will N.y give you an idea, of the scope of this, you can't put a coffee shop next to Home Depot. No one is going to go there. If you have driven by a Home Depot, it is enormous. You can't stick a little 2,000 sq. ft. store next to it. So you build a service center and this was our intentions. We never said that we were only going to build on the outlots, restaurants. I think from what everyone has said to me, it may be, and I think Mr. Piercecchi you brought this out in the past, too many restaurants. This improves the whole center with a very small building, 16,000 sq. ft. In a 3,000,000 sq. ft. center. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: It may be 16,000 sq. ft. but it may be the beginning of strip malls too. Already the streetscape concept is lost in that building. Right? Mr. Walkon: I think the architecture is very compatible. Mr. Piercecchi: But it isn't what you showed us in the beginning. Mr. Walkon: No. It is what we showed you in the beginning. Mr. Piercecchi: No, you showed streetscape. Mr. Walkon: You can only do so much on a 16,000 sq. ft. building. It is just because of the size of the building. Any suggestions in architecture, we would be happy to �.. take back to Mr. Drane. Mr. Piercecchi: Maybe you do need a service center but why would you build it there? Right off the service drive when you could put it in Outlot "C" would make more sense? Maybe I don't have all of my recollections in proper order but I was under that impression that the maximum number of units that would be in there would probably be 13. Mr. Walkon: No, I don't believe that is correct. Thank you Mr. Piercecchi. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Walkon, I think since Mr. Drane presented his plan and you've spoken to Mr. Piercecchi, I better understand your concept because Mr. Drane said service and then you expanded on that by saying bakery, coffee shop etc. Can you help me any more? Is it mostly food? Mr. Walkon: It will be more food service than anything else. We don't have tenants for that building yet. Frankly, this is moving faster than we thought it would. The Home Depot building is going up very quickly. We hope to open Home Depot the end of February and we wanted to do the service presentation at the same time but it probably will be more food oriented than anything else. Mrs. Koons: For me, as one Commissioner, I don't think that this is in competition with the two larger malls. Your point about lunch costing $14.00 versus $4.00, I think �ow the more important part is lunch taking an hour and a half versus twenty minutes. Thank you. 17364 Mr. LaPine: When you originally brought this plan, it was my understanding it was going to have five restaurants. There were three along Middlebelt, one at the corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft and around in that area. Now you are telling me we are not going to have those five restaurants? Now we are going to get commercial buildings in there. Small stores. What is going to happen to those outlots then? Mr. Walkon: They will probably be restaurants. They won't be commercial buildings. This will be the only building of this sort. Mr. LaPine: You made the statement that there were too many restaurants. That leads me to believe that what you are telling me, we're not going to have five restaurants here now? Mr. Walkon: If this building is approved, the most we could have is four. Mr. LaPine: So you are doing away with one restaurant which was around 10,000 sq. ft., if I remember right then we are going to a 16,000 sq. ft. building which you are talking about a coffee shop, a coney island and who knows what else so actually are getting more than five restaurants if you want to call these restaurants, and that is what I would have to call them. Would I be right in stating that? Mr. Walkon: A coffee shop, is it a restaurant? It might be called a restaurant. Is a bakery a restaurant? These are places you go in when you are working there. I don't think I would characterize them as restaurants. Mr. LaPine: If they serve food under our ordinance, they are a restaurant. Mr. Walkon: O.K. Mr. LaPine: I was always under the impression this area down here there was going to be a restaurant in this area originally anyway. That was my understanding of the overall plan. I am a little upset with the way the buildings are constructed compared with what we originally saw. The first plan you brought in we all were dead set against it. I wasn't for this project from the very beginning but it got better as you went back to your architect and you got the streetscape. I don't understand why we can't get the same kind of concept here. Mr. Walkon: I am going to let Mr. Drane address the architecture. I wanted to address the purpose of the building and basically it is for tenants, shoppers and employees and that bakery is some place if you working there and you want to buy a cake or some cookies on the way home to bring home. It is a convenience for those people. Mr. LaPine: Meijer's is going to have a restaurant within the confines of their building, are they not? Mr. Walkon: Yes. 17365 Mr. LaPine: The people you are telling me that are going to primarily use this are the people r.. who are working in the back portion of the industrial park. Is that what you are telling me? Mr. Walkon: It will be all of the people that work in the whole center which will be literally thousands of people. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I will offer a motion to deny. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-11-08-28 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, be denied for the following reasons: Now 1) That the petitioner has not complied with all of the general standards and requirements set forth in Section 18.58 and 19.06. That the look of this building does not fit in with previously approved overall theme of the development. 2) That the number of unit spaces this multi-tenant center could be divided into would be contrary to the established large scale retail uses preferred in this development. 3) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all of the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the citizens and its residents. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: When I first saw this plan with those five doors, I was thinking more so as a retail. But when you say you are going to have a coney island there, if they have 30 seats or more, that is a restaurant. If you are going to have a coffee shop there where you have 30 seats or more, that is a restaurant. I really don't have a problem with that concept because you said that you did want these type of uses to take care of people shopping there plus people working there. I know when we first had our discussion that at the Council meetings and our study meetings, the two out lots facing Schoolcraft Road were proposed to be two restaurants. It didn't say how big they were going to be but that they were going to be restaurants. Now it has been changed to one building having four or five 17366 restaurants and we don't know yet what the second out lot facing Schoolcraft is going to be. Could you address that Mr. Walkon? I just want to know if he 'N,w knew what it was going to be at time. Mr. Drane: The outlot on Schoolcraft is a full service, sit down restaurant with a liquor license. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Hale: I believe Mr. Walkon has made a compelling case for the need for this kind of establishment and center for that particular complicated complex and therefore, I will be voting against this motion. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Will the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine NAYS: Alanskas, Shane, Koons, Hale, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Do we have an alternative motion? Mr. Shane: I move that this be tabled so that the Commission can discuss the problems of NI.. this particular proposal and a little bit more detail and possibly give the architect and Mr. Walkon more idea of what you are really after. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was #12-212-99 RESOVLED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-11-8-28 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 tabled to January 4, 2000. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas, Hale NAYS: Koons, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. ITEM #3 PETITION 99-11-GB-10 DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS #1414 Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-GB-10 by `"w Disabled American Veterans Post #114 requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning 17367 ordinance for property located at 30905 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Denne and Hubbell. On October 13, 1999, this site received Site Plan Approval to construct an addition onto the existing meeting hall. At that time, it was brought to the Petitioner's attention that the new addition triggered the requirement for the protective wall that is required between a commercial zoned property and a residentially zoned property. As a condition of approval it was specified: - that within the next thirty days, one of the following shall take place concerning the south property line: - that the required protective wall shall be erected, or that a fully detailed Landscape Plan defining a greenbelt area shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Commission The applicant is complying with this condition and is requesting Planning Commission approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall along the south property line. The Disabled American Veterans Post#114 is requesting to retain the existing landscape greenbelt that separates the meeting hall from the adjacent residential house. The submitted landscape plan shows that the area in questions is 226 ft. wide and fluctuates between 137 ft. and 46 ft. in depth. This greenbelt contains large mature trees, heavy shrubs and very �..- dense undergrowth. In a letter that accompanied the site plan the applicant explains that if they were to construct a wall most of the existing trees would have to be removed. The applicant feels that the landscaping is dense enough to provide adequate screening of the building from the neighbors. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina:There was one letter that was submitted from the Disabled American Veterans, Chapter 114, 30905 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150 requesting a variance of concrete block wall installation which reads as follows: "City ordinance requires the construction of a block wall between the D.A.V. property and the adjacent property. The construction of this wall would cause the destruction of the green space between the properties. In order to preserve the green space and the naturalized appearance of the area, the D.A.V. requests a variance to this requirement. Enclosed are a plot plan of the D.A.V. property, and three pictures showing the density of the greenery between the D.A.V. property and the neighboring property. The plot plan shows the maximum and minimum grass areas between the properties. It also indicates the location of each tree and the height of the tree. Picture one (1) was taken from the corner of the Bone Yard Restaurant and indicates that the house is barely visible. Picture two (2) was taken from the D.A.V. parking lot, also showing the density of the greenery between the properties. Picture three (3) was taken from the neighboring property, also showing the density of the greenery between the properties. Installation of a concrete block wall on the present fence line would require the removal of 14 trees. Some of these trees vary in trunk diameter from 12 to 30 17368 inches and several are 6 inches. Three of the trees are on the neighboring property. Of these the largest tree stands approximately 50 feet in height. The other trees are on D.A.V. property and stand approximately 20 to 25 feet in height. All of the trees mentioned above are on the fence line. To install an 8 inch concrete block wall would require removal of all of these trees. The trees are located close enough together and dense enough so that there is no objectionable visibility of the structures between neighbors. There also exists a thick vine growing through the fence, which also limits visibility between the D.A.V. property and the neighboring property. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Donald McLean, 30905 Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to add to the comments. Mr. McLean: I couldn't tell from the back of the plan. We have the driveway through the drive-thru of the original bank. There is a curved line of trees which gives us a double length of trees. We have a large lot there. I think 10 feet is what you say we should have. The smallest area we have is 40 feet plus. Some of it is much larger than that as the curve goes the other way. The people who live there don't want that wall. We are sitting between a rock and a hard place. We want to appease everybody, but we don't know how to go about it. We would 'towlike to leave it as is. We have filled in the drive-through. This is completed except for the inside of it. It looks very nice. I think basically what you wanted the trees and so forth for, so you wouldn't see the vehicles going through there. There is not that many there anymore. We can't get anybody to drop their money off for us. But the use of the building is not that great. We have two meetings a month; the second Monday of the month and the third Monday of the month. Every Wednesday, we are open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for service officer's duty. Any veteran can come in and we will do what we can for him. We probably have anywhere from three to five people come in on Wednesdays which shows that we don't have too much traffic through there. I think the biggest thing that goes through there comes from the Elks. They are used to parking in the back side of our building. They are nice people, we don't want to holler at them. They cook a very meal and we go over there quite often. We would like to have you take this into consideration. Please do so. Thank you very kindly. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, when you have gone to the ZBA before, what did you have to pay the ZBA for a temporary variance? Mr. McLean: No I do not know. Mr. Alanskas: Do you know how long you had your last variance for? ""' Mrs. Koons: They didn't have them, they are new. 17369 Mr. McCann; Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Do you have any last comments? Mr. McLean: I thank you for your time. Mr. LaPine: I am going to make a motion to deny. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was #12-213-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 99-11-GB-10 by Disabled American Veterans Post #114 requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 30905 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That the applicant shall seek a temporary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or install the protective wall immediately. Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to the Disabled American Veterans. I am a Veteran. I belong to the VFW and have been an officer in the organization. You've got a nice screen wall back there and the neighbors don't want it. I've got no guarantee that, the post I belong to, we've sold buildings three times, if the right offer comes along, you are on Plymouth Road. You've got a nice piece of property. You may sell that property in the future and the new people who take over there may not be the type of business that people there may want a protective wall. By getting a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals, I don't care if they give you a five year, or a ten year waiver. If I could give you a 10 year waiver here tonight, I would vote for waiving the wall but we don't have that power. By going to the Zoning Board of Appeals they can waive that wall and if you ever sell that property in the future, they we have a handle back there that we can make the new owners do something there if they don't stand up to the same type of job you are doing. By going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I have no doubt in my mind they will give you the grant and I think that is the right route we should take. Thank you. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Taormina, if the property would happen to be sold and any changes were made, would they have to come back before us? Mr. Taormina: It is possible that a use could occupy the building and not require review by this Commission. On the other hand, if a use proposed to occupy the building that did require review by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that could then trigger review of the site in terms of any changes with the `�� possibility of a requirement to construct the wall. 17370 Mrs. Koons: Is something significant, and I am going to say signage, does that bring that back to us? Mr. Taormina: No. There has to be a reasonable connection between the request and a condition that would require an improvement such as a wall. As you recall, what triggered this request was the enclosure of the teller services at the bank facility and the review of the site plan. There was a determination at that time that that was a significant enough alteration to require the construction of the wall unless a waiver was granted. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. McCann: I am going to vote against the denying resolution just because I feel should a change in site plan come forward that would vary the amount of greenbelt in that area, we would have an opportunity to review it and at that time we could request a wall. I believe there is sufficient greenbelt at this time and that any use that could go in there that is currently zoned that the greenbelt would be sufficient to protect the neighbors. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Hale NAYS: Shane, Koons, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. The petition has been denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council. ITEM #4 PETITION 99-11-GB-11 FAMILY PRACTICE OF LIVONIA Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-GB-11 by Family Practice of Livonia requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 38253 Ann Arbor Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Hix and Houghton. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between an office/parking zoned property and a residentially zoned property. The applicant is requesting that the existing landscaped greenbelt along the south property line be accepted as an appropriate substitute. The area in question is 238 ft. in length by 10 ft. in depth along the west half and 31 ft. in depth along the east half. The submitted Site Plan shows that the area is presently planted with mature trees, a couple of ornamental trees, and a thicket of 15. ft. high lilac bushes. Even though the letter that accompanied the site plan, and for that matter, the site plan itself, Nom, reference the greenbelts along the east and west property line, only the south property line abuts residential and requires a protective wall. The applicant 17371 explained that the greenbelt has been in place for 23 years and in that time they have not received any complaint from the neighbors. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from Dr. Frank D. Winters, dated September 27, 1999, and reads as follows: We are currently applying for a permanent variance on our green zone. The green zone extends around the South, East and Western portions of our parking lot. We have enclosed a schematic map outlining that particular area, which has been highlighted in green. The green zone has been in place since or about around 1976, when the building was constructed. The variance expires every five years. This indication is to seek a permanent change in the zoning to allow continuance of our particular Green Zone. As expressed in the previous communications with our initial application, it is the desires of the community and neighborhood, along with the original builders of the property, that a wall not be constructed and that a green zone indeed be in place. This would be more esoterically appealing and less of a risk for any child(ren) in the neighborhood, which may be inclined to climbing on a large wall. The green zone has been in place for 23 years. We are requesting that the green zone be allowed on a permanent basis with no additional variances filed every five years. The current green zone extends approximately 68 feet on the Eastern portion of our property, next to the parking lot that borders Houghton Street. It extends approximately 238 feet along the Southern portion of our property, which backs to two homes. It also extends on the Western portion of our property, which is Hix Road, for approximately 60 feet. The portion of the green zone on the Eastern portion of the property currently has five very large Spruce trees, approximately 40 feet tall, it is also planted with numerous small shrubs. On the larger portion on the back of the property on the South side there are six Spruce trees, five deciduous trees, and approximately 40-50 small bushes and small plantings. On the Western portion of the property, there are eight spruce trees and one deciduous tree with numerous other small plantings. Again, since this green zone has been in place for 23 +years, the trees have matured nicely. We are seeking a permanent variance wince these have been in place since the construction of our building. We have not received any complaints whatsoever from the neighbors in 23 years, to our knowledge. Our current landscaper also is maintaining this particular zone. Your consideration into this matter and a decision for a final and permanent variance is so requested. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Frank D. Winters or Diane Kallay, Office Manager of Family Practice Centre of Livonia and Bahu, Smith, Bickle, Geppert, Rollins, Tower and Winters Ent." Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dr. Frank Winters, 38253 Ann Arbor Road. `''� Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us? 17372 Dr. Winters: I think the letter pretty well summarizes it. The screen zone has been there for a long time and it is pretty mature and looks very nice. I have a letter of `„w support from my neighbor and I believe the other neighbor is here tonight. This is a clinic that unlike the previous, we plan on being there for a long time. It is set up for family practice. We have some new partners that are going to be there for 30 plus years. We are seeking a permanent variance. Mr. McCann; Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Do you realize that you have been in violation of Section 19.06 of our Zoning Ordinance which requires a screened in dumpster area? How long have you been in that area? Dr. Winters: I have been practicing there for 19 years. The original four owners have retired. They are all in different parts of the country. Mr. Piercecchi: For 19 years you've had your dumpsters unscreened. Dr. Winters: We were unaware of that but we will correct it. Mr. LaPine: You have been there how long? Dr. Winters: I started there in 1983. The building was built in 1976. o.• Mr. LaPine: When the building was originally built, do you know if they got a variance for the wall? Dr. Winters: I believe so and I think so and I believe it expires every five years. Mr. LaPine: What is your hardship of going back to Zoning Board of Appeals and getting another waiver? They can give you a 10 year waiver or a 20 year waiver. I am just not in favor of waiving walls because I never know what is going to happen in the future and the Zoning Board of Appeals has that power. The situation you have here is, you might be doing an excellent job. When I looked at it last weekend, I've got no problem with what you've got there, but I am just not in favor of the permanent waivers because I never know what the future is going to bring. You may have another building three blocks down the street but he doesn't keep his property up like you do and if that happens, I want to get that guy. I see no problem with you going back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and just ask them for an extension of the waiver and I would ask them for more than five years, maybe ten years. I know it cost you $150.00 every time you apply, but if you figure out what it would cost you for that wall, every five years you had to pay $150 is a lot less than what that wall is going to cost you. Thank you. Dr. Winters: I can see the matter both ways. Again, we are a family practice. The building is designed for medicine. It is designed for suites. It is not usable for anything NINNY. else. 17373 Mr. LaPine: I understand and I agree with you 100% but that is my position and nobody else has to agree with me but that is the way I feel. Thank you. r.. Mrs. Koons: Dr. Winters, did you make sure our staff has a copy of the letter from your neighbor? Dr. Winters: Yes. Art Herring, 9427 Houghton, right next door. The area is kept well with the landscaping service, the sprinkling system and the trash is picked up. I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken. It looks real good the way it is and to just put in wall. With the greens and when the 20 to 30 foot trees are blooming, let's just not do that. Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. Is there a motion? On a motion by Mr. Shane to approve, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-GB-11 by Family Practice of Livonia requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 38253 Ann Arbor Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as shown on the landscape plan dated 10/23/99 prepared by David's-Design Consultants, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That any changes to this area shall require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval; 3) That the trash dumpster area shall be enclosed and the three walls of the enclosure shall be constructed out of masonry similar to the principle building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to oppose this because the logic that was expressed in the previous case applies here too in as much as the applicant can renew a temporary variance and he can still have his greenbelt but still we won't be encumbered with any potential of a problem later on down the road as Commissioner LaPine as so effectively stated. I am going to vote no on it. Mr. Alanskas: I still want you to have your greenbelt but at the present time we have this before City Council. It is either in the Law Department or in study to possibly change the language in our ordinance. I see no problem with you, like Mr. 17374 LaPine says, to go and get a 10 or 15 year variance because you are still going to have the greenbelt and we are not going to affect the neighbor behind you. �,,.. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, Koons, McCann NAYS: Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Hale ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails due to lack of support. Is there an alternative resolution? On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved it was #12-214-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-GB-11 by Family Practice of Livonia requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 38235 Ann Arbor Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 be denied for the following reasons: 41•1. 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That the applicant shall renew their temporary variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals or install the protective wall immediately. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Hale NAYS: Shane, Koons, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council. ITEM #5 PETITION 99-5-8-16 CLARITA COMMONS DEV. L.L.C. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-8-16 by Clarita Commons Development L.L.C. requesting approval of a landscape plan and entrance markers for the Clarita Commons Site Condominiums located at 29505 Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the south side of Clarita between Middlebelt and Melvin. On June 16, 1999, Abington Development received site Plan Approval to 17375 construct the Clarita Commons site Condominiums on the subject property. As part of that approval it was conditioned: - that an Entrance Marker Application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval The applicant is complying with this condition and is requesting Planning Commission approval for landscaping within the easement along Clarita Avenue and within both cul-de-sac islands. Also proposed are two entrance markers identifying the development as you enter either one of the two courts. The 10 ft. wide easement would be planted with a combination of deciduous trees (Red Maple, Flowering Crab), evergreen trees (Douglas Fir, Spruce) and shrubbery(Wardi Yew, Burning Bush). The cul-de-sac islands would be landscaped with plant materials such as Burning Bush and a couple of Spruce trees, boulders and mulch would complete the treatment of the islands. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one letter from the Inspection Department dated November 19, 1999 which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 8, 1999, the landscape plan for the above referenced site has been reviewed. The following is for your review. (1) There is no indication of what the infill material would be (sod, mulch, etc.) (2) Is the landscaping irrigated? (3) The sizes and �.. dimensions of the proposed plant materials are not mentioned on the plan. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Larry Lenchner, 7770 S. Adams, Suite 210, Birmingham, MI Basically in front of you and in answer to the letter that was written, I also received a copy and changed the plan to reflect all three corrections. If you notice on the plan, you can see where sod and mulch are located. There is a schedule for the size for all of these trees and there is a note that that all areas of landscaping will be irrigated for all three points. I might also point out that in the original site plan approval from the City Planning Commission and City Council there was never any mention of sidewalk and unbeknownst to me as I am looking at the plan, I see a sidewalk plan in here which if you could please omit from this plan but all three items addressed in the letter have been changed and reflected on the current plan that is in front of you. Mr. Alanskas: Could you tell me what the markers are going to read, please? Mr. Lenchner: One suggestion was that the name of the streets would be put on the marker or if that wasn't satisfactory to the Engineering or Inspection Department that there would be names for the development along with street signs put on each cul-de- sac. 17376 Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, we only have so many square feet and if we don't know what is going to go on the markers and if they say they are going to do this or that, and r.. we never have approved something before we know what is going on the markers. Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that the area of the message has been outlined on the marker plan. So in any case, they would not be allowed to exceed the 15 sq. ft. which is identified on the plan. Mr. Miller: This sign area here is 15 sq. ft. Usually we don't approve graphics. He can have any kind of graphics in there he wants but he has to fit into this 15 sq. ft. area Mr. Alanskas: Even though it is 15 sq. ft. If we wanted to put in five different addresses, could he do that? Mr. Miller: Not really. It is not a street sign. It is suppose to be an entrance marker. The ordinance specifies he has to identify the development not the street unless it is called Clarita Development or whatever the street is. But it is usually the development. Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I question what it is going to say is because the way the subdivision is made and if you didn't know, or if you weren't feeling too well at night and you didn't know which one you were going into, you could have a problem to separate one from the other. That is why I asked what they are going to say. Mr. Lenchner: To answer the question, each cul-de-sac will have its own name. Mr. Alanskas: So each one will be different? Mr. Lenchner: Yes and probably with some graphic scrolls just for decorative purposes. Mr. McCann: Clarita East or West, something along those lines? Mr. Lenchner: Yes. Correct. Mr. LaPine: You asked to have the sidewalks taken off? You are not going to put in sidewalks? Mr. Lenchner: No. That was never site plan approved and was never an issue. I don't know why my landscape architect put that on there. I just caught that. Mr. LaPine: That surprises me. Don't we require sidewalks in all new subs? Mr. Taormina: I just became aware of that issue this evening. Unless it is a requirement of the Engineering Department for a sidewalk to be installed, we wouldn't have any connection with that. 17377 Mr. LaPine: Because the Council is always hearing these cases about sidewalks and I would have thought that the policy now a days was that any subdivision had to have r., sidewalks. Mr. McCann: Is this an R-3? Mr. Lenchner: It is R-2 and there are no sidewalks between Middlebelt, I am not sure of the road where it dead ends to the west. There are no sidewalks along the whole front anywhere there. Mr. McCann: Are there sidewalks within the development? Mr. Shane: If this were a platted subdivision, we would require sidewalks but it is not. It is a site condo. Mr. Taormina: Apparently, the site plan did not require them. Either way I would suggest that this site plan not give any indication, one way or the other as to the requirement for sidewalks. That would be a separate issue. Mr. Lenchner: That was basically a miscommunication from my landscape architect. It has never been shown before and it shouldn't be shown now. Mr. LaPine: Do we see anything or proposal marked on what the sign looks like or what it is going to be made of or what kind of materials will be used in the construction of the signs? Mr. Lenchner: I believe if you look on the second page you will see it shows the sign. It is a granite sign .... Mr. LaPine: O.K. I see it. Mr. Lenchner: It shows the boulders around and the height and the berm and it is something that is going to be a little bit classy. Just in good taste. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, at this point, couldn't we as part of the landscape plan, especially between the two streets, require a sidewalk because I see kids from one group of homes running into the street to get to the other group of homes. Especially between the two cul-de-sacs, as part of the landscape plan, can we require the sidewalk to be put in between the areas? Mr. Taormina: Are you talking about just the area between the two cul-de-sacs but not including the area ... Mr. McCann: That is my concern. That is where I see the major problem is that you are going to have young families going in there. You've got about 16 homes and the kids are going to be going back and forth between the two and if you had a sidewalk anywhere that is the most logical place. 17378 Mr. Lenchner: That is a good point. I will agree to that and I will put it in, between the two cul-de-sacs. Otherwise, it will force you out into the street. So for the kids sake, they can go from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac and stay protected on the sidewalk. I have no problem with that. Mr. Taormina: Is there sufficient right-of-way in that area to construct a sidewalk? Mr. Lenchner: I am not sure, but I am certainly willing to agree that if it is within Engineering's power to show me where to put that between the two cul-de-sacs, to address that, I would be happy to do so. Mr. McCann: That was my only major concern at this point. It is something that can be worked out. Even if it is not in the right-of-way, this is a R-2, and is a site condo and a side condo, as long as he stays within his own property, he can do that? Mr. Taormina: As long as the easement is available, but in looking at this plan, he indicates a 10 foot easement just outside of the sidewalk for the purposes of installing the landscape material. I can only assume that the sidewalk would be placed within the right-of-way. It may very well be that there is sufficient area available in the right-of-way to install the sidewalk. We'll take a look at that and as long as the applicant agrees to install that sidewalk then it should be included as a condition of the approving resolution and the details worked out. Mr. McCann: It will be a three foot sidewalk. Mr. Lenchner: That is fine. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #12-215-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-5-8-16 by Clarita Commons Development L.L.C. requesting approval of a landscape plan and entrance markers for the Clarita Commons Site Condominiums located at 29505 Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape Plans marked Pages 1 through 5 prepared by C.G. Wilkop Landscape, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided within the 10 ft. wide easement area and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 17379 4) That the plant materials shall be, at the very minimum, equal in vow characteristics to those listed in Section 18.45(c) of Zoning Ordinance #543. 5) If sufficient right-of-way or easement is available, a sidewalk shall be added between the two cul-de-sacs. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. That concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commissioners. ITEM #6 PETITION 99-9-1-15 GENERAL PROPERTIES CO., L.L.C. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-1-15 by General Properties Co., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located immediately west of Sunset Subdivision between Fargo Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to R-3. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #12-216-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-9-1-15 by General Properties Co., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located immediately west of Sunset Subdivision between Fargo Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to R-3 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann: Scott, do you have anything new on this for us? Mr. Miller: No. Mr. McCann: Anything new Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: There are no new items of correspondence. I am wondering if the petitioner is available? Mr. McCann: I don't see the petitioner here this evening. I don't think we require it. Is there a motion? On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was #12-217-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 23, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-9-1-15 by General Properties Co., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located immediately west of Sunset Subdivision between Fargo Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-9-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: 17380 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony �., with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area immediately to the east of the subject property; 3) That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the subject property for single family residential purposes in a manner compatible with lots in Sunset Subdivision on the east side of Sunset Avenue; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of low density residential land uses. 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 resolution adopted. r... ITEM #7 PETITION 99-9-8-23 CANVASSER BROTHERS (Buckingham Plaza) Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-8-23 by Canvasser Brothers, on behalf of the Buckingham Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #12-218-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-9-8-23 by Canvasser Brothers, on behalf of the Buckingham Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann: The petitioner is in the process of revising their plans and have requested to be tabled to January 25, 2000. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #12-219-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-9-8-23 by Canvasser Brothers, on behalf of the '" Buckingham Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of 17381 the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24 tabled to January 25, 2000. a.. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. ITEM #8 PETITION 99-10-8-26 VAN BORN PLAZA (Livonia Five Plaza) Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-8-26 by Van Born Plaza, L.L.C. on behalf of the Livonia Five Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial center located at 28423 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was #12-220-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-10-8-26 by Van Born Plaza, L.L.C. on behalf of the Livonia Five Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial center located at 28423 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 be taken from the table. Mr. Miller: On November 29, 1999 at the Regular Meeting we approved the elevation plans for the center. We called back the location of the trash dumpster. The proposed N.w location would be between the east side of the center and the sidewalk running along Sunbury Avenue. The plan shows a 6 ft. wide landscaped greenbelt screening the enclosure from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ryan Kattoo, 29201 Telegraph, Suite 450, Southfield, MI 48034. I am here today to answer any questions regarding the relocation of the garbage enclosure and give you a reason why we feel that this location will be the best location for the center and the community. The first reason is that where the garbage cans are currently located, if we were to relocate them to the new site, this will help increase the beautification of Five Mile Road. There are not too many retail centers or buildings that I know that have garbage can enclosures right on the road. This is something I believe the City would feel that they would not want visitors or anybody else driving through the City to see something like that. The second reason why we feel it should be relocated is that if we were to construct an enclosure along the Five Mile side, we would reduce exposure to the tenants that are there. I understand that this is roughly 3% to 5% of the total exposure that we have on Five Mile. It may seem small but this kind of center is going to draw a lot of small tenants which we call as "mom and pop" tenants. The tenants are not national tenants. They are not tenants in multi-locations or in other states. These are basically tenants that are in the community. They are trying to improve their business and need all the help they can get. Every bit of exposure that they can receive would definitely increase their business. We have one national tenant there. That is Electrolux and we have lost one already, 17382 Pizza Hut, due to a corporation decision. This trash can enclosure, if it was proposed along the road, would block Electrolux. It would affect Electrolux's Au, position the most. They require 17% of the center. We would have to see them move. Their lease will expire in a few years. I know that a lot of national tenants are very sensitive in regards to reducing their exposure in any way, shape or form. The center currently has a 45% vacancy. With Electrolux's 17%, it would be over 50% vacant. A third reason and I think a very important reason is, if we were to place this garbage closer to Five Mile or up in the front as possible, this is going to push or if not force the current tenants or any future tenants to actually remove their waste from the premise through the front door. They are not going to want walk through the back door, walk around the building and walk to the front to remove their rubbish. They are going to want to take the short route and the quick route which is through the front door, especially if it is some form of food chain, restaurant or coffee shop. This is something they do not want to do - to have their patrons see the waste removal going through the front door. It is unsanitary and if you can imagine something at your house, if you were to remove through your front door, I am sure your spouse would definitely have an argument with you. We are trying to create a convenience for the tenants that are there and any future tenants. By having the trash enclosure on the west, each of them can exit through the back door, walk directly to the west and the cans would closest to their unit. Another reason is the parking issue because where we locate this dumpster affects our parking site plan and how much parking we can have. We want to increase the parking in the center. The center currently has 60 parking spots for13,200 sq. ft. That is basically one parking spot for every 220 sq. ft. We are in a very tight parking situation. If we relocate this enclosure to the west, we can add or keep an additional four to five spots in the center. We are currently looking to increase the parking from 60 to 75. In the site plan is spells out how we do that. By increasing it to 75 spots, it would be one parking sport for every 176 sq. ft. which greatly helps to increase the marketability of the vacancies that we have in the center. To increase our ability to lease out this center to multiple users. A very important issue we feel the reasoning and why we want to have this enclosure on the west side is that if we place the cans anywhere in the front, we are going to have a large garbage truck driving through this parking lot. We have Wright & Filippis, which is a facility that supplies medical supplies to those who are physically challenged. We have Mr. B's Pet Salon which people come in to have their dogs groomed. We have a lot of dogs and children with their dogs, etc. and we are going to have this truck drive through the parking lot which will endanger the safety of the patrons of the center and number two, any possible damage to any valuable cars that may be parked there. By having the truck going through the front parking lot, this will cause a premature deterioration of the asphalt that is there which is doing the opposite of what we are looking to do there. What we are looking to do is to improve and revitalize the center. The reason we are going through this whole revitalization program, is literally takes you back 20 to 30 years when you look at this picture. Another possibility to consider is that there already is a screen wall in the back of the center, a six foot screen wall that blocks the visibility of the neighbors behind to what is going on, on the other side of the wall. Six feet high which is more than adequate to cover the enclosure that is there. The property owner next 17383 door, I believe it is a restaurant, has a garbage can enclosure that is 40 feet closer to the neighbors where we are requesting our enclosure to be. They are Now actually located within 20 feet of neighbors who are located about 50 feet away. Another consideration, this might sound funny, but the kids are using this area as skate boarding. The tenants have called us many times. I'm sure there is a record of the police going out there many times to stop this activity. It is very unsafe for the kids that are skate boarding there. There have been many incidents where the skate boarders have used that area and actually hit pedestrians. By having that enclosure in that area, it is somewhere where they tend to congregate and it will remove that problem that we currently have. These are some of the things that will definitely improve the center. If there are any questions that you may have, I will be happy to answer them. But these are some of the reasons why we need to relocate this to the west side. Mr. Alanskas: Is that a big problem with the children skate boarding there? Mr. Kattoo: I haven't managed this property for more than a year, but every single tenant has mentioned it to me about five or six times. Mr. Alanskas: I just wondered if we blocked that off, would they start skate boarding in the parking lot? Mr. Kattoo: I put a sign up saying "no skating boarding" and they threw eggs at it. Mr. Alanskas: You do have the back of the building where if they had to they could skate board. Mr. Kattoo: They actually are using the curve of the sidewalk which is about 6 inches high, which is called grinding and they tend to enjoy doing that. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I was out there today in the rain for the last time to look at this. I am not happy where it is but I have come to the conclusion that may be the only spot. The thing that worries me is when you were here before, you mentioned there could be a restaurant in there. If the restaurant is at the far east of the building, and if they generate any amount of garbage, it is a long way to walk. They are going to have to go down there more than once or twice a day if it is a normal restaurant. But that is something they are going to have to understand when they move in and they'll know where the dumpster is. As of now, I would assume the garbage hauler will come up Sunbury, drive in behind the building and drive in and pick up the dumpster and move on. We talked the last time, is there going to be one dumpster or two dumpsters? Mr. Kattoo: We are going to make an enclosure which is going to allow two dumpsters. The reason we are going to do that is if we make it just big enough for one and in the future, we are trying to increase the center's marketability, and lease it out and if we need to put in another dumpster we will just build an enclosure for one. 17384 Mr. LaPine: Right now you are building it for two for you'll only have one for the time being? r.• Mr. Kattoo: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Were the three sides on the north, east and west all be brick and then the back portion, the south portion there is where the gates will be? Is that correct? That will be all brick? Mr. Kattoo: Yes. What we are trying to do is, we have a concern here to, neighbors tend to use dumpsters at centers like it is their own. We want to enclose this dumpster as much as possible so that the tenants can use it and so that there is not additional cost in dumping it. We currently have locks on the dumpsters and on the gates. That is what we arc proposing to have. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #12-221-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-8-26 by Van Born Plaza, L.L.C. on behalf of the Livonia Five Plaza, requesting approval to relocate and construct a dumpster enclosure and modify the layout of the parking lot as required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with previously approved plans to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial center located at 28423 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan stamped Page 2 from Heil Partnership, as received by the Planning Commission on November 29, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the plant materials shall be, at the very minimum, equal in characteristics to those listed in Section 18.45(c) of Zoning Ordinance#543. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I don't believe that there is any perfect solution to the location of that dumpster but I do believe that this is the least troublesome area that we can have. Out in front, like the gentleman said, definitely would be out of order. 17385 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. ITEM #9 PETITION 99-11-8-27 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-8-27 by Richard Blumenstein requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an industrial building on property located at 33875 Capitol Court in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #12-222-99 RESOVLED that, Petition 99-11-8-27 by Richard Blumenstein requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an industrial building on property located at 33875 Capitol Court in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional? Mr. Miller: This site plan was tabled at the December 6, 1999 Regular Meeting. The Planning Commission wanted to see more landscaping along the protective wall s,®, between the residential and the industrial building. The petitioners submitted a landscape packet that shows he would plant a hedge along the south half of the wall, four to five feet in height. Along the north half of the wall, he would plant 13 evergreens, six to seven feet in height, staggered to soften the industrial building. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there anything additional? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We have received one item of correspondence since our last meeting. It is a letter from John Gibbs, Traffic Bureau, dated December 8, 1999 and it reads as follows: "I have reviewed an amended site plan, which I had received about the captioned petition. The overhead door at the loading dock has an increased setback distance from that of the previous site plan. The setback has been increased by 5 feet as agreed by the developer. I have no further requests or recommendations about the site plan." Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the developer here this evening? Richard Blumenstein, 32400 Telegraph Road, Suite 205. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us? Mr. Blumenstein: Not unless the board has any questions for me. 17386 Mr. LaPine: One of the issues that came up at the last meeting was the fact you were proposing to put a wall five feet high back there. I guess the property that Mr. t„„ Pastor has, the wall is seven feet and I wanted the wall to be consistent. Mrs. Koons: It is five feet. Mr. LaPine: Is it five? So everything is going to be five feet now? Mr. Blumenstein: Everything is going to be consistent. Your concern was that there not be a variation in the height of the wall and the heights of the wall will be exactly the same. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions. Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #12-223-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-8-27 by Richard Blumenstein requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an industrial building on property located at 33875 Capitol Court in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 be approved subject to the following conditions: No` 1) That the Site/Landscape Plan marked Sheet LD-1 dated 12/6/99, as revised, prepared by GAV Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Materials Packet for the protective wall along the west property line, as received by the Planning Commission on December 6, 1999, 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, not including the rear yard area, 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 dated 10/21/99, prepared by GAV Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-inch brick; no exceptions; 7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same masonry material used in the construction of the warehouse 17387 portion of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 8) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height; 9) That the conditions specified in the Zoning Board of Appeals case #9909-116 shall be met. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mrs. Koons: I see you responded to my dislike to arborvitae with all of your information. I just wanted to let you know I am not going to have a problem with it because it is next to a wall on the side where it won't get beaten up by the winter. Mr. Blumenstein: Actually, the background to that particular selection is two fold. One is when we got out to visit with the neighbor we discovered that there were existing evergreen trees from the height of where the wall would be fairly high and the second thing was we discovered we were below a power line and had to plant in accordance with Detroit Edison's guidelines because I too sometimes have trouble with that plant material but the landscaper assured us that this would grow up and compliment the existing evergreens. It would hedge to high the wall and it would provide the type of cover that you were concerned about at the last meeting. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #10 PETITION 99-8-GB-5 MELVIN HERNER & KEVIN KONAT Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner&Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #12-224-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner&Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interior Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. Is there anything additional? 17388 Mr. Taormina: Yes. There are three letters from the abutting property owners indicating their support for this petition. Noy Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. LaPine: He was told he didn't have to attend. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion? On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner &Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line and the natural greenbelt along the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1999, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That these areas shall remain in their present state and any changes to these areas shall require Planning Commission review and approval; 3) That the trash dumpster area shall be enclosed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and the three walls shall be constructed out of masonry similar to the principle building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 4) That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed within six(6) months of this approval. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Koons, Shane, McCann NAYS: Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas, Hale ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed due to lack of support. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and denied, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner& Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning 17389 ordinance for property located at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That the applicant shall renew their temporary variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals or install the protective wall immediately. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I have a couple of comments. Was the petitioner informed that he did not need to be here tonight? Mr. LaPine: Yes, he was. Mr. McCann: Was he under the impression that we were going to approve this? Mrs. Koons: Yes. Mr. McCann: I will make an alternate resolution to table this matter until such time as the petitioner can be here. I will pass the gavel at this time. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman: Is there support to table? On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was �.. #12-225-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner & Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. Do we have a date? Mr. McCann: I am going to recommend no date at this time so that the petitioner may be informed and he may want to go to the ZBA in the meantime. Mr. Alanskas: I will pass the gavel back to our Chairman. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 794th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 19, 1999. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was #12-226-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 794th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 19, 1999, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: 17390 AYES: Shane, Piercecchi, Koons, LaPine, Alanskas, Hale w.. NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN McCann Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 795th Regular Meeting held on November 9, 1999. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was #12-227-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 795th Regular Meeting held on November 9, 1999, are hereby approved. AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN Hale, Koons, Shane Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. '4.. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 797th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December14, 1999 was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION / ' ' ,, / /a /l J f , , /4.I :'I' i I" ichael Hale, Secretary ATTEST: 7( i v',--- J,amess C. McCann, Chairman /rw