The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-07-25 17885 MINUTES OF THE 809th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION `.. OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 25, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 809th Public Hearings 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 Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas Elaine Koons William LaPine Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present. Chairman McCann 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 become 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 2000-05-01-09 J & S Evangelista Development Co. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-01-09 by J& S Evangelista Development Company, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue& Plymouth Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to OS. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has 17886 reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested" The letter was signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Khanh Pham, 7071 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. I am representing J S &E Development Company. Fortunately, that was a good map review of overview of our rezoning. Just real quick, on the Developers of this proposed rezoning, they are also the land owners of the office service building down here. Their names are Dr. Jose Evangelista and Dr. Stella Evangelista. They run the Livonia Diagnostic Clinic. We believe that this rezoning is pretty straight forward and in adherence to the Future Land Use map. If approved, this office service zoning would be an extension of what is already to the south. Submitted with our rezoning is a concept plan of what we propose to do in the office service district. There would be a one-story office, linear building, to follow the lay of the property. We believe that our investigation of the Zoning Ordinance is correct and that we have applied all of the applicable ordinances of setbacks and parking. Again, we are here to respectfully request a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to rezone Lots 135 and 136 from RUF to OS. I am available for any questions you may have. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Lot 139 has a house and Lot 137 has a house. Do you own that property also? Mr. Pham: The property to the north? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Pham: No, we do not. Mr. Alanskas: As you are well aware, we have had three petitions from these people in the past; one for RC, one for R-9 and one for R-1. At those times we wanted to wait until we could complete the entire package. You do have OS to the north of you and to the south of this property but we still have these three vacant, open. Have you talked to the people at all about their property, to make it all OS, completely? Mr. Pham: We have tried and we further intend to start a dialogue with them. Because we believe that the first step to a good dialogue is an action from us to show that we are serious about OS. So we made that petition to rezone it and we will continue to try to discuss with the northerly property owner whether they would be interested in doing a partnership of that type. Mr. Alanskas: Can I ask you, what is the stumbling block for them to selling the property? Is s"' it money for what they want for the property? 17887 Mr. Pham: I haven't been involved with the project long enough to know whether it is financial or whether it is a general agreement on what is good for both property owners. Before, there was talk about townhomes and other things. This is the first time that J S&E Development Company has thought, "Why fight the Future Land Use"? Why don't we just conform and do office? We are going to try and discuss that with the northerly property owner on how they feel about doing office. If there is a stumbling block, we feel that the way we laid this out, we can do our office building. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I have one. You have a zero setback on the southern line. Is there no way to have a separation? Mr. Pham: There is a masonry wall that already exists here, because before this was a residential zoned property. I do believe that we have a separation and there is a wall here. It is now a two-office development. I would have to confer with my planner on why it is so close, but he believes that this is conforming. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, does this require a waiver use to have the building so close to the southern property line? Mr. Taormina: Would it require a variance? `, Mr. McCann: A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Taormina: Certain types of construction may allow him to have a zero setback. Otherwise, he would be required to have a setback of 10 feet from the south property line. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? John Colucci, I retain my law office at 10811 Farmington Road and I reside at 10685 Farmington Road, which is the property directly next door to this particular rezoning and development. I was surprised by an OS request in connection with the property next door. I had known in the past that there were various residential proposals in connection with the development of that property. But I did come down and get the petition and the drawings to find out that it is a single story, apparently, office-type complex. I would not be in favor as an adjacent landowner and as a business owner in the neighborhood for such a rezoning use in connection with this land. The office complex immediately to the south toward Joy Road and adjacent to this proposed rezoned property, has to the best of my knowledge, to say the least, has been underutilized for years. Portions of it, I believe, are not even fully occupied at this time. Therefore, certainly there would be a question as to intensify the use of office space next to office space that is marginally productive, at best. Furthermore, I haven't 17888 measured the Master Zoning plan but from what I observed when I picked up the copy of the petition, OS as a proposed use in this area, does not run the full depth of these lots. These lots are in excess of 620 ft. deep and the OS portion on the Master Zoning Map appeared only to extend a couple of hundred feet back. Which, other than the property immediately south, it is more consistent with the OS use in this area. It would seem that as far as the back end of the lots, there is obvious access from Angeline Street for a continuation of the residential subdivision that is behind the properties. For those reasons we would urge the Planning Commission to consider very carefully any attempt to rezone the entire parcel as OS with the marginal use of the office property next door and apparently more consistent, and perhaps entirely consistent use, with extension of the residential properties from behind. Mr. McCann: Mr. Colucci, are you the owner of Lot 137, immediately north? Mr. Colucci: I do not own the property, but I do reside on Lots 137 and a portion of Lot 138. There is a division on Lot 138 between the two houses that you referenced, which is, for nothing else, for tax purposes. Mr. McCann: But you are not the owner of that property? Mr. Colucci: No, I am not. Mr. McCann: Have you discussed this with the owner? Mr. Colucci: Yes. The owner is also my client. Mr. McCann: Is your client filing a letter or protest against the change of zoning? Mr. Colucci: We had hoped for a dialogue as to what would be done with this section of property but in connection with this proposal, there has been no dialogue to my knowledge. That is not to say a call wasn't made or received but I am not aware of any dialogue in connection with this particular proposal. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mrs. Koons: Does the owner, your client, own property further north than what you just stated, where you reside, than 137 and part of 138? Mr. McCann: Does he own Lot 139? Mr. Colucci: That lot is in the family, but I can't swear as to who owns it. Mr. LaPine: We have had this before us a number of times and the property owner has always been opposed to any rezoning. What do you think should happen there? Eventually, something is going to happen. The best thing that could happen is that all four of these parcels either go OS or we extend Angeline Road through to Farmington Road and make a subdivision in there. s... Somewhere along the line, we can't just keep putting off the Evangelistas not 17889 being able to use the property. Is there any possibility that you two can get together and come up with some type of solution? __ Mr. Colucci: I certainly think that is possible. I was contacted some time back by a developer that called at the behest of the Evangelista's and indicated to me that he had done a lot of large projects and was interested in working on the back end of these properties but said there was some type of problem with Angeline, as a street, not extending to the property line at the back of my property. I said, "Send me the documents". He said there was litigation pending with respect to a problem there and I never heard anything further after I had asked for the documentation. We did have an engineer take a look at that property the other day and it does appear that Angeline goes directly to the end of the property line that I occupy which would be the west property line at the back of parcel 137 and a portion of 138. That has been an issue that was raised to us, that there is some type of problem with bringing that road through, that there is a gap in the land there. We haven't seen anything on that but the last contact I had with respect to any of this was that there is a big problem at the back end accompanied by litigation. Now whether or not that is true, I can't say. Mr. Shane: Mr. Colucci had mentioned the Master Zoning Plan as not showing the rear of the land as office. I was wondering if he might be talking about the Future Land Use Plan and assuming that he is, Mr. Taormina, can you tell me what is the Master Use Plan forecast for this property? Mr. Taormina:Office. slur Mr. Shane: For the entire property? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Colucci: I could be wrong on that. I did look at it up on the third floor on the wall and it did appear that the crosshatching did not extend to the full depth of the property. Mr. McCann: It appears on our map that it does and that the OS to the south also extends the full length of the property. Mr. Colucci: I certainly would then withdraw my remarks in regards to that. Mike Sobczak, 33442 OrangeIawn. My wife and I live directly south of this zone that is in question. While I am not a property owner, as a resident I have a couple of problems with this development. Probably more emotional than anything but coming from Novi where you routinely see a lot of green space being torn down for offices, I hate to see the same thing happen to Livonia, especially for saw north living in Livonia since last November, seeing all the empty property just north of Plymouth Road on Farmington, it just seems kind of odd that there is 17890 an obsession with turning all the fallow land into offices. Another thing, as a resident, I am not really too thrilled about the prospect of hearing the construction for the whole summer and fall to put up new office buildings. Also, I don't see how this would benefit a resident like me to have more offices there. There is plenty of congestion and traffic with people trying to make left- hand turns onto Farmington. There is a park on the other side of this proposed development, where people and children walk. It seems like having more traffic for more offices, I don't see how that is going to benefit me in the long term. That is all I have to say. Dr. Stella Evangelista, 7071 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 220, West Bloomfield, Michigan. I am the owner of the property. I think I was before you two years ago to present a plan. I believe it was for six or eight homes, or duplexes. I can't remember. We have been here so many times and we have tried so many different ways to develop this property that it is now a blur. It has been so long. We have tried talking to Mr. Colucci because that was the intent of the board at that time - to get the two parties together with the help of John Nagy. Nothing came out of it. Not because we did not try. Not for lack of trying, certainly. I have been there personally. I sent my builder, Mr. Gallagher. I sent another builder because I thought he was not receptive to Mr. Gallagher so we sent another builder, Mr. Pastor. Nothing came out of it for lack of cooperation from Mr. Colucci. This last try with the office zoning, Mr. Khanh Pham tried to get in touch with him at least three times. There was no response. Our hands are tied and we can only do so much. I think it is time to move on. We should develop the property that is sitting there vacant. I think it will be to the benefit of the community if the property is developed. The building south of us is medical and not general office. I intend to make this general office. We intend to make it single story, residential looking, so we will conform to the community type office. I think office zoning is not in contradiction to that strip because our office is in the corner of Orangelawn and Farmington Road. Then we have Orangelawn Center, which there are two buildings and this office building and there is Mr. Colucci's properties and Professional Village, we also own, which is an office complex. The last building is owned by the pharmacist. I think it conforms to the neighborhood. Rob Sutschek, 33704 Angeline Avenue, Lot 13. I have some pictures that I would like to pass around to you. The pictures show Lot 11 to the north and Lot 10 to the south. What we, as a community of Angeline, want to express is that on the diagram that we were just shown, the parking spots go right up to the end. I have a little red mark at the end of the driveway on Lot 10. A little vertical line, that is where there is a pink stake, actually surveyed. That is basically where that parking lot is going to go up to. On this diagram it shows a parking spot right there. We on Angeline Avenue feel that we have something really special and we would hate to see our wildlife and the deer that run through there, that type of thing go away. We are hoping for at least a setback right there off of Lot 10 so that we don't have a parking spot right there on the corner that we can see from our subdivision. A lot of the noise from Farmington, we don't hear. We hear Hines Drive in the morning and Plymouth 17891 Road in the evening. But we normally don't hear Farmington Road traffic and we are afraid that this is going to open up a big echo chamber for us. r.. Don Edmunds, 33682 Angeline, Lot 12. We moved into this subdivision believing that this property would stay residential and we had heard at that time from the part owners or developers that perhaps detached condos may go in. We had no reason to object to that because it is semi-residential. Changing from residential to commercial will affect us with the parking lot abutting Lot#10. We do have some objection to the change of use without an adequate greenbelt or some type of isolation between us and the non-residential building. If you install the cement or concrete wall, we have seen that in the adjoining subdivision, it really depreciates the value of the houses which they could not sell for nearly a year. Mr. McCann: I want to make sure, as well as yourself, understand this is a zoning petition tonight. It is not a site plan. We would make sure the adjoining property owners of a site plan for an office, if that were the case. If this were approved by us, and approved by Council, they would still have to come back with a site plan. At that time you would look at whether or not there is a wall or a greenbelt. What trees would be saved or what would go, that type of thing. Tonight we are trying to consider whether or not it is appropriate to change it from RUF to Office zoning use. Mr. Edmunds: Changing it to office use will still affect the subdivision. Thank you. Rob Sutschek, 33683 Angeline, Lot 9. I am one house away from the proposed site, on the south side. When we bought the house about four years ago we were under the impression that it was not going to change. We have heard a lot of rumors, one way or the other. There are a lot of kids back there and dogs. Being on that side of the street, the south side, I have noticed that in the medical complex on weekends, there have been various kids and various cars that pull up in the back of the lot and park, make all kind of noise, drinking and doing whatever they are doing. It is noticeable and I can hear it. My concern is if you put an office space and parking spot, which Rob alluded to earlier, what we are going to find most likely is a brick wall or whatever it is, even if it is not, it is going to open up the area to come back there and park and possibly jump the wall or do whatever they do to walk through the subdivision, which is something that no one is comfortable with where we live. Again, because we have so many smaller kids. That is my concern. But the parking lot issue, because kids do tend to park back there because it is farther off of Farmington Road so the police aren't as likely to look back there and it opens up more of an opportunity for them. That is something we deal with because we live right next to it. That is something I don't want to lose because it is very peaceful and quiet back there. Ed Marzec, 34397 Parkdale. I am against the proposal of offices due to the fact that about 18 years ago we were told there was going to be a through street going into Farmington Road when they get through building. Mr. Nagy, I saw him 10 ``"' years ago, and he said there definitely is going to be a street. Now I see more 17892 houses being built and I haven't seen a street just like Parkdale going into Angeline and all the other streets in the City of Livonia, a hundred and four houses. Let's continue with the houses and build that street that is suppose to go into Farmington. It will be much better for the buses to pick up the kids on the other side instead of the kids walking three quarter to a mile down to my corner. Also, for the Fire Department, it has to go almost three miles to get to house#10, that he mentioned on Angeline, with four red lights to make. The house will burn down by the time they get there with the way traffic is on Plymouth. Consider all that and the traffic that moves on Plymouth, that that should be a road going through Angeline all the way into Farmington. That's all I have to say. I have more but I'll just wait to see what you people are going to do. Mr. Nagy said there should be a street. In fact the Mayor called me today and said "Make sure you make the presentation today". Here I am. It is benefit of the kids down there and also the police will patrol in there. Of course, there are about three policemen that live in that area but you'll have a patrol going right through there and when the buses go pick up the kids, instead of them going down Farmington, all the way to Hathaway, back to Stark Road and they start out at Five Mile. Let them come down and they can pick them up right at the corner of Farmington and Angeline Street and then go to Hathaway and go back around. They won't have to walk a mile to my corner. That's all I've got to say. Tim Haywood, 33766 Elmira Court. I am opposing the rezoning of that property. If the City of Livonia were really in need of office space, I don't understand why you would be considering this. If you go along Schoolcraft and I-96, you see a lot 'Newof vacant office space. We don't need to rezone something right now you already have available. I would like to see it just left alone. Thank you. Paul Colucci, (Jr.) 10791 Farmington Road, Lot 139 and a portion of Lot 138, north of the proposed zoning change. I oppose the petition to change the zoning from residential to office service for the reasons already stated but additionally for reasons relating to traffic. I make my residence at 10791 Farmington Road. It is a road that narrows from four lanes to two lanes. It is an avenue that is already choked with traffic. Bring in additional office buildings, additional traffic is not going to help that situation. The existing office service north of Orangelawn and south of the lot involved here tonight, Lots 135 and 136, seems to be almost a fluke to begin with. I don't believe that would be in the best interest of the residential neighborhood or in the character of the neighborhood of future development to continue that and make it a larger mistake than it already is. With that said, I would respectfully oppose the requested zoning change. Mr. McCann: Are you the owner of Lot 139? Mr. Colucci: Our family owns those lots, yes. Don Urkanic, 33727 Angeline, Lot 7. I also oppose the rezoning for many of the reasons stated. I moved into the home four years for the isolation, the secludeness of °"' the property. I have two small children under the age of 2-1/2. I planned on 17893 raising them there in that area, for the cul-de-sac reasons. I do strongly oppose the rezoning. Mo. Mr. McCann: Sir, I will give you the last comment. Mr. Pham: There have been a lot of questions about whether this property is appropriately zoned or should be zoned to office. I think a lot of those questions are discussing whether the market can sustain that. I believe that with what we are proposing, it can. And being as a property owner and that we have exhausted our other available options or residential or town homes, that now we are looking at a situation where we are looking at the future land use. Something that is set out for us as a property owner as a guidance for what we should do with that property. We didn't like it initially, but now we are just going to say, "we are going to do it" and we are going to follow that future land use and go for office. The concept plan may not make everybody happy and I appreciate the fact that it was mentioned that this is not a site plan and we would be more than willing, when it comes to the site plan, if it comes to site plan time, to work with the residents to alleviate any concerns. However, if it is office, we need to it as office so therefore, I think it is an appropriate request and when the site plan comes, we will be before you again and we will be scrutinized a lot harder than even now. So I am requesting that you give us a positive recommendation to the City Council from RUF to Office. Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing. Is there a motion? Saw Mr. Shane: I am going to make a denying resolution and I want to say why. You have two problems here. One, you have a development which is predicated on two lots and because it is two narrow lots, the development can only be done one way and that is a long narrow building and if it were developed with the other lots involved in the whole comprehensive solution you could turn buildings a different way. You could provide greenbelts and those kind of things. If it is to be developed as office, I see it being developed in a whole package, all of those lots together. The other problem I am having is Angeline Circle. Angeline Circle was stopped at its present point with facilities so that it could be drawn forth easterly over toward Farmington Road. The only way that you are going to do that is to develop the property adjacent to it as residential. I think we have a dilemma. We have to decide what is the best use for this property and in order to do that, I think we have to stand back and take a look and take a little time with it. For that reason I propose a motion to deny. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was #7-141-2000 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-01-09 by J& S Evangelista Development Company, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue &Plymouth Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-01-09 be `'" denied for the following reasons: 17894 1) That the proposed zoning change will provide for only piecemeal development in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a comprehensive solution to future development of the subject property, as well as adjacent properties to the north; 3) That existing commercial and office zoning along Farmington Road and Plymouth Road adequately provides for office uses in this area; 4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional office services in this area; and 5) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to the adjacent residential uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I would just like to state that I believe what Mr. Shane said is probably true but somewhere along the line, we cannot continually deny the person the use \.. of their property. It seems there is some animosity between the two property owners here. The two of them have to get together and decide either way we are going to either develop this as a joint venture, or one is going to buy out the other one. My personal opinion would be that Angeline Street would be extended out to Farmington Road and it would be extended as a subdivision. But we can't continually deny the person the use of their property forever. The two parties have got to get together and try to work out your differences and either one try to buy out the other and then we can develop it the way we think it should be developed or else we are going to end up having a piecemeal operation here. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to support the denying resolution because I feel, very confidently, that the development of the subject property should take place in conjunction with the adjacent property to the north in order to produce a more unified and comprehensive development plan for the area. Also, if it is felt that Angeline Court in Orangelawn Woods Subdivision should be extended easterly to Farmington Road to provide a second means of access to the subdivision, the rezoning of just two subject lots would certainly decrease the likelihood of that ever happening. Mr. McCann: I am going to support the denying resolution. I think the RUF is a reasonable use at this time. I don't believe it is unreasonable in the matter that it is currently being used. The concern I have is that I don't think OS is appropriate for one section. When we looked at the Future Land Use Plan it 17895 was that that whole area would be combined so that proper buffers could be created between the residential and the office use. By doing one at a time we can't create the proper buffer for the neighbors and I can't support a petition for one section. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-05-01-10 Leo Soave Building Company Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located South of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one letter and it is from the Engineering Division, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objection to the legal description contained therein. We would like to request that a cul- �`"' de-sac will be required at the terminus end of the street instead of the current "dead-end". We trust that this 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? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. What we propose is an extension of Kenwood Estates #1 which would be a Phase II which would be comprised of 9 lots. These lots would be 70'X 120'. Once this petition is approved, these would be two and three bedrooms, full basements and they will sell for about $250,000. I'll answer your questions. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Soave, did you try to buy any of the back portions of these lots? Mr. Soave: Yes sir, we tried but they didn't want to sell at this time. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: At the present time, the way you have it dead end, a fire truck would have to `�- back up almost 200 feet to be able to turn around. That would be a huge 17896 problem. Would it would a problem to have that cul-de-sac entrance as a dead end? Mr. Soave: If the City Engineering would require that, we could do that. We shall put a "T" type turn around at the end. Whatever the City would require is what we would do. Mr. Alanskas: I understand that if you obtained that property further south, then you could open that cul-de-sac and go right straight through to the rest of it. Is there a chance that you may get that property? Mr. Soave: I don't think so, sir. Not at this time, no. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Denise Hunter, 14901 Cavell, which is the third lot to the south where this proposal ends. I have lived there for a total of 14 years. I own the property. I have experienced a lot owning that property. I have a group home just to the south of me, which only uses 1/3 of the portion of the property leaving the rest of the property behind it as a vacant field. Because of that, I have experienced a lot of, and I know a lot of neighbors have as well, a lot of crime as far as breaking and entering and running through the outback there, through the tree line there, a lot of illegal dumping on my property especially. A lot of damage as far as trees coming down in storms and people, neighbors,just leaving them because they consider it just vacant property, not actually that somebody owns that property. Neighborhood kids partying on the properties leaving their empty beer cans and garbage laying around. It seems to me that there is a total lack of respect of the surrounding neighborhood in regards to my property. There is an unwillingness of the neighbors to support each other and to defend this type of behavior. I am in agreement with developing this property just for these reasons to try and safeguard against them to stop it. I no longer feel able to care for and maintain my property properly because of these issues and I feel if it is developed, then I won't be held responsible for it. Thank you. Paul Pinkstaff, 15035 Cavell. I have the first piece of property to the south. Since I have agreed to sell them my property, I am obviously for this. About two years ago when all of this started and the development to the north happened, I was not in favor to selling at all because of the peacefulness and the beauty and what have you. It was just like being out in the country instead of being in the middle of a town. However, since everything has happened to the north, there are already bright lights shining in my windows that didn't used to be there and the character of the area has changed and I imagine there is going to be a lot more people putting pressure on my land in terms of throwing stuff in it, digging holes, if a lawnmower falls in, kids building forts. Its great fun but somebody has to clean it up and that is me. So I have decided to change my 17897 mind and said we might as well go with the flow. Something is going to happen here one way or the other. I agreed to sell and I'll have almost an acre left and I think there will still be a house with a pretty good size lot left in Livonia, so I am for it. Adrian Mannarino, 14695 Cavell. I am definitely opposed to the rezoning of that area. Some of the reasons that I feel it shouldn't be granted is that I feel the size of the lots that are there now are certainly an asset to the City of Livonia. There are very few communities that you can go to that have that type of neighborhood. I have lived in my residence for approximately a little over two years. I certainly have not experienced any crime in the area. I feel also, if that area were to be rezoned, it would destroy my quality of life right there and certainly I feel for the neighbors in the area also. Also, one of the reasons why I moved there is the size of the lots back there. I don't know if you have ever been back there or not. If you go behind the homes on Cavell Street, it is like being in the country. There is a lot of wildlife there that I enjoy viewing. That will be displaced. Also, I feel that if this petition is approved, I would like to see a cul-de-sac put in the area where the petition we are talking about right now, as I noticed on the drawing that was up there, the road, the way it ends over there. It was a matter of time that the gentleman would be requesting the land further to the south be rezoned simply by the way the road ends. That road, the way it ends, it appears that it would be a continuation further south of the land that is back there. So I feel that if the cul-de-sac isn't going to be put in there, there is going to be another request to develop the land south of there. Empty land is not necessarily worthless. I am sure you are aware of Birmingham putting up all kinds of big homes on small lots. Now we are doing the same thing. We are dividing these large parcels of land simply to put more homes on there. Livonia has plenty of homes. Once again, I am strongly opposed to it and I encourage you to come visit me, if you have to. Come behind my house and see what is back there. Once again, if some of the issues were brought up by one of my neighbors that if there is a problem that exists, there are remedies involved. If there are people back there that shouldn't be back there, certainly we have a Police Department that can handle it. If there is dumping that is occurring, that can also be handled. Once again, I would like to state that I hope the petition is denied. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Mannarino, where on this map do you live? Are you on the same side of the street? Mr. Mannarino: Meadowbrook virtually dead ends in front of my driveway. I am a little further south of the development. Mrs. Koons: At the back lot of your property where there are other homes on Santa Anita, the back of your property is the homes that face Santa Anita, true? Mr. Mannarino: Santa Anita is a little further north. I don't know if the map shows where Meadowbrook is? I am probably 10 homes south... Mrs. Koons: Is there any fence, or buffer or demarcation? 17898 Mr. Mannarino: No. It is all wide open, full of trees and wildlife. Mr. McCann: You are right. It does back up to Santa Anita. The map on the right shows it. Russell Barnes, 14801 Cavell I have lived there for 11 years. The reason I oppose it is the peacefulness, the quiet and the wildlife. My kids all play back in there. Going to the dumping, the only dumping I had is from developers dumping all of their garbage on me and then the City gets after me and I have to clean it up. But as far as the kids, like my neighbor said, we've got a Police Department and I've never had any break-ins or anything. I moved down in 1989 and I enjoy it. I sit out there on my deck, I've got a long lot and I speak for my neighbor to the north of me and for the one to the south of me. They couldn't make it tonight because they work afternoon shifts. I told them I would come and speak and they feel the same way I do. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Walter Gerado, I own the property at 14875 Cavell. I am here tonight to urge the Commission to approve the plans of Mr. Soave and to extend it further south to the lot which is located right behind the residence that the young lady described the group home. We kid ourselves if we think the property can remain rural for the rest of eternity and to deny the City the tax basis that would come from infill land building, doesn't make any sense. I would like to urge you to approve this proposal and I am confident that you will. Thank you. Uomo Odo, 14995 Cavell. I own one of those lots that are being rezoned and like my neighbor, Mr. Pinkstaff, I too liked having the open lot and the large piece of land and the wildlife was very good. At the beginning I was not interested either, but I too have problems at the back of my property with people dumping things back there and I have to mow most of that property and I go through an awful lot of tractor and tractor parts doing a lot of repairs with some of the things that go on back there. I think I see it in a different way. I think it is a good thing for the whole neighborhood and property value. I don't think it is a bad thing. If you look around you, you have subdivisions and homes, top and bottom. All you have is a strip of land that is left in there in between all of these homes that is really sitting there and not being used. For one thing, it is a very low area that collects some water and it I would see it developed into a nice subdivision. I am in favor for it. Thank you. Janet Sinor, 14777 Cavell, I have an acre and I enjoy the outback. We have to pick up too but that is why we bought it. We oppose it. It is other people that dump there. I work very hard. I wouldn't have bought that home. They should have done this a long time ago. I am sorry but that is the way I feel. It shouldn't be this way. It is not fair to us because we bought there. We have a Police Department and they should come and check. 17899 Mr. McCann: If there are no more questions, I am going to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Soave, I am going to give you the last comment. Mr. Soave: We have Western Golf to the south, which is R-2 and our number one phase is R-2. So I would appreciate your vote to rezone this to R-2. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. Alanskas: Looking at the Phase I and Phase II, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a continuation of the first phase in which I think the plan is not a bad plan except for the fact that I don't like the dead end. It would have to have a cul- de-sac and on that I will give an approving resolution. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located South of Five Mile between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-05-01-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent zoning changes in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an extension of an existing residential development currently in progress to the north of the subject property; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are consistent with other developed properties in the area. 5) That there will be a cul-de-sac at the very southern end instead of a dead end. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against this proposal. I believe there are still people out there who want to own large lots. These people who feel they can no longer take care of them, they can put them up for sale. Some people out there like to have two or three acres of land. My biggest objection is to buying off these back portions of these lots and these little mini subs going in. I don't think they do a good service to the City. I just have made up my mind that I 1., am going to oppose these type of developments from here on out. 17900 Mrs. Koons: I am also not in support of the approving resolution. When I look at the map, I see a large amount of RUF and often times when we approve these, it is because it is just a small portion of RUF. This seems to be one part of our City where a large amount of RUF is still available and I would also like to keep it that way. It is an affordable area of the City with large lots and I think it is something we owe to the residents to maintain. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: In my opinion, this rezoning petition, going from RUF to R-2 leaves many questions unanswered. Will it lead to further rezoning requests further south? I believe in all probability such will be the case. Hence this string could continue south to the homes abutting Western Golf. If this package is approved, perhaps a cul-de-sac would satisfy its accessibility needs. However, beyond that an east/west access road would be necessary. In study, it was suggested that the staff evaluate various scenarios for this and other sites where long RUF lots occur and maybe petition for downsizing into smaller lots in the future. I haven't received any information on that, Mr. Chairman, and subsequently, I am going to also deny this proposal, until I study this thing and we have some input. If these things are going to happen, I think it should be systematically done as a whole as we opposed the rezoning on Farmington Road because it wasn't comprehensive. I don't know whether this is comprehensive. This is the first time I have seen it and I am going to vote no on it. Mr. McCann: I've just got one comment. I have heard what the neighbors are saying. To a great extent, I agree with them, however, the road does dead end. I think that 'gob, using the petition to be rezoned before us could be used as a cul-de-sac and to end the development of the R-2 in that area. The neighbors that own the property are in agreement with it and I think it would be good solution. Therefore, I am going to vote with the approving resolution. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Piercecchi, Koons ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: It is a tie vote. Is there an alternative resolution? On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located South of Five Mile between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-05-01-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed changes of zoning is incompatible with the adjacent RUF district in the area to the south and west; 17901 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are inconsistent with adjacent large lots in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage additional rezoning requests for smaller lot zoning in the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary fort he continued use of the subject property for residential purposes. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mrs. Koons: I am supporting this resolution for the same reason I was denying the other and in addition it could be that we extended the subdivision and ended it with a cul-de-sac but it could also be that we extended the subdivision, ended it with a cul-de-sac and had three more neighbors say, "Now I want to sell my property". I listened very carefully to the neighbors. One of the neighbors said that vacant land was not worthless. I also agree with that and again, this is a large section of RUF that shouldn't be disturbed. Mr. McCann: Secretary please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Koons, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, Shane, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: The vote is tied. Is there an alternative resolution? Mr. Piercecchi: I recommend that this petition be tabled. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was #7-142-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located South of Five Mile between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-05-01-10 be tabled to August 29, 2000. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Koons ABSENT: None `.. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 17902 ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-06-01-11 Michael Soave Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-01-11 by Michael Soave requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10 from OS to RC. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this 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? Mark Frederick, 2964 Wallsend Drive, Waterford, Michigan, representing the petitioner. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about what your plans are? Mr. Frederick: The intent is to build attached condominiums of 1300 sq. ft. with attached two car garages, with basements, full brick front elevations, vinyl sides and rear, wood trim, not aluminum, probably two bedrooms but possibly three bedrooms. Mr. McCann: Anything else? Mr. Frederick: No. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you aware of the setback requirements for RC off the main thoroughfare? In case you are not, let me bring them up again. They are 75 feet front and 50 feet rear. I find it impossible to place an RC unit on this property when its depth is only 110 feet. The two setbacks require 125 feet. I would advise you to seriously consider developing this site entirely under OS standards with office setbacks of 40 feet front and 15 feet rear,this site can accommodate office standards very easily. Actually this .6 acre site could easily accommodate an office building over 5,000 sq. ft. with adequate parking. Mr. Frederick: We feel we are willing to attempt to get a variance if we do get the approved rezoning. Mr. Piercecchi: I notice in the notes that you mention that you want to go to planned residential waiver. You know those are granted but they are small. Maybe 17903 somebody needs 40 feet and they have 38 feet or 35 feet. You are way over that. I don't see how you could expect to get a waiver through the planned residential development waiver, 20.1 or 20.2, which is the ordinance number for those. I don't see how you would ever expect to get that one when you are so far out of line. Mr. Alanskas: Do you own this property or is it contingent on the rezoning? Mr. Frederick: We own it, currently. Mr. Shane: Because of the lack of setback here, the other problem I see is the real difficult problem of trying to back out onto Farmington Road from these garages. You only have probably 25 to 30 feet to deal with there. Unless you have a turn around of some sort, I don't know how you would ever get down to Farmington Road. The site is awfully narrow. Mr. Frederick: But those items will have to be addressed and worked out in site plan approval if we do get the zoning change. Florence Martins, 18351 Westmore. I live directly behind the property in question. I highly oppose any dwellings going up. Anything over one story would be out of the question. I highly oppose that. There used to be a creek in that area and there is a deep hole. There would be a filling question as to how they are going to fill that. Mr. McCann: This is only a zoning question tonight. That would be something that would have to come up with the Engineering Department. Before they could build they would have to satisfy all the engineers that they could provide for 25 year flood. Roy Novara, 18399 Westmore. I am the lot directly behind. Again, as the lady said, there is a structural issue. There is an eight foot drop from Farmington Road to the base of that, not to mention the backup. I am worried about flooding and those kinds of issues that need to be addressed. Mr. McCann: I have seen that lot many times and I am very familiar with the drop. Seeing that there is no one else wishing to speak, I am closing the Public Hearing. Mr. Frederick, do you have any last comments? Mr. Frederick: We intend to build only one-story condominiums, if that is part of the opposition. That won't be a problem. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #7-143-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-06-01-11 by Michael Soave requesting to rezone property located on the east side of 17904 Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10 from OS to RC, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-11 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a spot zone since it is surrounded by dissimilar zoning districts; 3) That the proposed zoning district will not provide for development of the subject property in a manner consistent with its size and location; 4) That the proposed rezoning is not necessary for the development of the subject property; and 5) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a reasonable land use for the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-06-01-12 Alex Ali Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-01-12 by Alex Ali requesting to rezone the southerly 135 feet of Lot 5 of Strathcona Gardens Subdivision such property located on the Northwest corner of Deering Road and Five Mile Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 from OS to C- 1. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr.Nowak: There is one letter and it is from the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: The South 135.00 feet of lot 5, Strathcona Gardens Subdivision, located in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1S.,R. 9E., City of Now Livonia, Wayne County,Michigan as recorded in Liber 69, Page 31 of Wayne County Records. We trust that this will provide you with the 17905 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? Al Chier, I am representing Mr. Alex Ali. Our proposal is to develop the property as mixed use consisting of office space and commercial space. The property right now is zoned OS. We are asking that the 130 feet south of the property to be rezoned from office to C-1 and the other portion will stay the same, which is OS. Mr. LaPine: Explain to me why we should rezone the property in front to commercial? Why can't the whole parcel be OS? Mr. Chier: The reason why is that we need to have a commercial store at the front, a retail store, for an ice cream store and that can be done on the OS, or the City regulations, I believe That is why we are asking to rezone it. Mr. LaPine: I guess you haven't convinced me why. Why can't we rezone the whole parcel OS and you use it strictly for office services? Mr. Chier: It is already zoned OS. Mr. LaPine: I understand that, And you want one portion rezoned. Why can't you rent it out all as OS? Mr. Chier: Actually, we are going to rent it out, all of it. We, as I know from our client, Mr. Alex Ali, he wants to have the first portion, which is up front for his use and the other portion for offices and he will rent the other part. Mr. LaPine: So he is going to operate the ice cream store? Mr. Chier: Yes. It is a family business. I believe so. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how long has Mr. Ali owned this property? Mr. Chier: Since 1998. Mr. Alanskas: Since 1998, has he tried to put in OS services there? Mr. Chier: Actually it was a transmission store. Mr. Alanskas: But has he actually tried to lease it out as OS? Mr. Chier: It was an old building and he demolished that building to improve the area. Mr. Alanskas: But has he tried to lease it out as an OS, Office Services? Mr. Chier: It was vacant land, sir. 17906 Mr. Alanskas: I understand that but you can always put up a building in OS and lease it out? Has he tried that? `.► Mr. Chier: He is trying this right now. Mr. Alanskas: No, not commercial. Has he tried to do OS only? Mr. Chier: I don't know. Alex Ali, 15408 Auburndale, Livonia. No, I haven't tried to lease it or anything like that. Mr. Alanskas: From what you are telling us is that you already have someone as a C-1 for an ice cream shop. That is why I asked if you had tried to lease it out as an OS building and have it all OS and you say you haven't done that. Mr. Ali: That would be nice if I could have the whole thing as a commercial but I thought it would be a problem to change the whole thing. Mr. Alanskas: So you answer is that you have not tried to lease it out as OS. O.K. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Do you own any property in the area, such as next door? Mr. Ali: I tried to talk to the owner next door, but I guess he is not interested in `ow selling or buying mine. Mr. Shane: The two vacant lots? Mr. Ali: Right. Mr. Shane: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Richard Grant, 15417 Deering. I have lived on Deering for over 20 years. I would like to present to the Planning Commission a petition of over 50 of the residents on Deering Street that oppose this project. I am sure you are familiar with the car wash and the particular problem we have on Deering accessing because it is a dead end half mile street. We have in excess of 200 cars that have to enter and exit from that corner and the previous petition to stop another auto related business that was suppose to go in next to the car wash years ago. The Planning Commission and City Council rezoned that property from C to OS because of the particular problems on Deering and Oak Drive. The Deering street has 50 foot lots. Most of the houses are on 50 foot lots. It is really highly compact. We have to fight the car wash across the street and `�. we will have to fight this new project that is going in across Five Mile. We will have an additional 50 to 100 cars, whatever from the Soave project. I 17907 don't think for health and safety of our kids and the residents, we all are opposed. 1411M ' Mrs.Koons: When you say you have to fight. Do you mean in and out of Five Mile. You don't mean coming down Deering? Mr. Grant: Not down Deering. We have to fight with traffic going into the car wash. Traffic that is going to be generated with this new project across the street, which is only a couple of hundred feet down from the car wash. Angela Nildda, 15355 Deering. I am the fourth house from the lot in question. I also strongly oppose. Not only is there traffic congestion at the corner of Deering and Five Mile but that is also the bus stop right there. There are a lot of children on our street. If you put another commercial property with a lot of cars coming in and out of right there, it could cause harm to our children having more traffic there when they are coming on and off the bus. Also, we just don't need any more traffic. If you are going east bound on Five Mile to make a left hand turn onto our street, sometimes you can't even get into the center lane to turn because of the cars that are turning into the car wash and to the street adjacent to the car wash. Thank you. Audry Swistara, 15367 Deering. I own that property and the adjacent 50 foot lot, which is vacant. I am the fifth house down. I would like to reiterate the traffic concerns. Also I note that the petitioner has proposed access from both Deering Avenue and Five Mile, which would add to the traffic concerns. Also, a commercial establishment such as an ice cream parlor would create noise, loitering and I would imagine it would be open until 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. This is not the type of neighborhood that I planned to move into. My parents lived at the address right next door for 20 years and I moved back into this community from Redford Township and did not know of any plans for rezoning for commercial use. Thank you. Al Petroska, 15441 Deering. Ordinarily I wouldn't make a big issue out of this because I figure everybody is entitled to a right to develop their property. But we already have enough retail vacancies on Five Mile Road. He said there was a two unit across the street next to the car wash. One of those units is vacant. If you go up to Harrison at Five Mile, they are trying. The facade is a little scary looking but there are vacancies in there. We lost our Farmer Jack up at Five Mile and Middlebelt. Now I hear we are going to put in a Hand-D-Dip with office space. The office space is all right. The training shop that was there before, I am glad it is gone. But this isn't the way to go. Thank you. Robert Branton, 15341 Deering. I live in the house directly behind the area in question. Looking at the map here, if they dissect this land up, this one little corner of this very large lot, to make it commercial, what is going to happen to the rest to the lot there? If you dissect this up, you've got a lot right behind it, looking at the map here. A lot right behind it that is too small to build a 'r.. house on because it is very narrow. How is this going to affect the rest of the big block of OS there? 17908 Mr. Piercecchi: The depth of that lot is 247 feet along Deering Avenue. This request is for the south 135 feet of the subject property to be rezoned to C-1,just the front end of it. The back 112 feet would still remain OS. Mr. McCann: Would it be as one building? Just half of the building would be used as commercial and the other half would be used office. Mr. Branton: Is it going to be two different buildings? Mr. McCann: You can have one building with different zoning. The building is actually split in half with a wall right there and this half could be used as commercial and the other half is OS. It has been done in the City before. It is not what we are recommending. We are waiting to hear everybody's comments before we make a recommendation to the Council. Robert Daniels, 15967 Deering. I live right at the end of the street. When you look at the property that is in question, I know you did mention that there was a vacant lot, there is another lot that is for sale right now and one of the owners says he does not want to sell currently. But there is also right around the corner on Oak, an old medical clinic. I think it was used by a chiropractor, and that is vacant currently. Why wouldn't they consider taking this entire area, hasn't some developer said "Maybe I can purchase it and build some homes in there" as opposed to making it office because we do have enough space in that area and there is empty office space in that area. You can just go down `r- to the end of the road. There is Brookshire Plaza, vacancies. You've got Suburban right across the street, vacancies. You've got right across where Thomas Cake is, you've got vacancy retail. Mr. McCann: The question is not office. It is already zoned that. The question is whether to change the corner part of the lot to commercial. Mr. Daniels: The other side is, I have been there for 12 to 13 years now. I have seen enough accidents from the car wash itself coming out, that I think it is a very dangerous area. Because you have a hill over there where you have restricted vision and you cannot see the cars coming through there. We are actually on somewhat of a hill and as you come over Five Mile Road, it is really difficult. You get people coming over there and especially during winter where it is icy over there. There is at least 80 homes on that street and many of the people park two cars or so in that street. The problem is you get a lot of traffic coming down there. I get commercial traffic coming from the medical clinic next door. They try and come around and their trucks drive over my lawn and they don't care and I live right at the end. What is going to happen when they start putting offices over there? Then you are also going to have people that come down from getting their ice cream and they want to hang out somewhere. What better place than down by the end of the street. You also have the fact that you have children coming down there all the S.. time. I see kids going over there rollerblading across there and playing with skateboards. There is nowhere for them to play. Why don't they turn it into 17909 a little park? If you look at that entire section from Six Mile to Middlebelt to Five Mile to Inkster, there is nothing there. Mr. McCann: Sir, you've got to stick with whether or not it should be zoned office. This is privately owned property that is currently zoned OS. They are petitioning to rezone part of it to commercial so that he can use an ice cream shop on part of it. That is what is before us. Mr. Daniels: I know, I've got a sweet tooth. I like the Dairy Barn but I don't need one right down the street from me. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Joe Glegola, 15891 Deering. I have been there for some 30 years. I don't think we need an ice cream parlor on that corner. What these people are saying is right. There are accidents. There is a lot of traffic that shouldn't be there. It is a blind spot when people are coming over that hill. That car wash has caused a lot of problems there too. I agree with what they are saying. Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing. You have the last comment Mr. Ali. Mr. Ali: I don't know if you are familiar with the history of that building. It used to be a transmission place. I think it was one of the worst looking buildings in the City of Livonia. I have been living in Livonia for 20 years and I have been driving by that building for so many years. As soon as I bought it, I '�► took it down. It was a terrible building. About the bus stop, this business is only going to be seasonal. It is only going to be during the summer months. A portion of that building is going to be an office. Mr. McCann: But commercial zoning also runs with the land so if it doesn't work out to be an ice cream parlor it can also become other uses. The question is not whether it should be an ice cream parlor. The question is whether it should be commercial use on that corner. If there is nothing else, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #7-144-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-06-01-12 by Alex Ali requesting to rezone the southerly 135 feet of Lot 5 of Strathcona Gardens Subdivision such property located on the Northwest corner of Deering Road and Five Mile Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 from OS to C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-12 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of office use for the subject area; 17910 2) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the existing OS zoning district occurring on the lands to the west, north and east of the subject property; 3) That the existing commercial zoning along Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads adequately provides for commercial uses in this area; 4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional commercial uses in this area; 5) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the development of the subject property; and 6) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future requests for similar zoning changes along the north side of Five Mile Road in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I would like to say that I agree with you that the transmission shop was a long existing problem. I think office is appropriate zoning for that area and that this is premature. You would have to demonstrate that you couldn't do something with office before we could consider going to something like C-1 for an ice cream parlor. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-05-02-22 Borman's Inc. (Farmer Jack#771) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-02-22 by Borman's, Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack#771, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a SDD license in connection with a retail facility located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced som►, petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information 17911 requested. The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Now petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Albert Lord, 18718 Borman Avenue, Detroit. I am here representing Borman's, Inc. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about this request? Mr. Lord: Yes. We came before the Planning Commission earlier this year as a result of the fact that we did take over the former Builder's Square facility. I would assume that you have all had an opportunity to see the Farmer Jack there. This license would only augment our one stop shopping concept. We currently have a beer and wine license there. As a result of the one stop shopping concept, with post office, pharmacy, beer/wine and other general merchandise items, we figured that would augment that location. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: In the metropolitan area, how many Farmer Jack stores do you have, `'r•- roughly? Mr. Lord: Approximately 100. Mr. Alanskas: Out of the 100, how many do you have that you do not sell liquor? Mr. Lord: Currently each of the stores do sell beer and wine and we have 21 SDM licenses. Mr. Alanskas: No but the SDD... Mr. Lord: I meant SDD. Mr. Alanskas: You have 21 out of 100? Mr. Lord: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: Out of the 21 out of the 100, what percent are your sales are liquor, in this store, roughly? Is it a large amount or a small amount? Mr. Lord: We plan on having in that store a$20,000 to $30,000 inventory. Certainly that amount of income that we generate off of sales, varies from store to r.• store. I couldn't tell you specifically what the average was. 17912 Mr. Alanskas: But it is probably a small amount? Mr. Lord: I would say it would probably be in the neighborhood of$400,000 on an annual basis. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. The store does look very nice. I have been in there. Mr. Lord: Thank you. We are pleased. Mr. LaPine: If you were successful in getting this liquor license under our ordinance, packaged liquor has to be behind the counter. It can't be out in the general area where somebody can come by and pick it up. Did you know that? Mr. Lord: Certainly, I personally do not know that. I am not with the construction or merchandising departments. But certainly if there are some regulations that we have to comply with as far as the City is concerned, we would be more than happy to comply with those. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Gary Kalosis, 29570 Clarita, Livonia. I represent the Woods of Livonia Association, the condominium complex behind the Farmer Jack. I would like to give you an overview of our concerns and what my other board members and residents, if they so desire, voice their opinion. We oppose this proposal for a couple of `► reasons, the traffic and noise problem that we have had in the past already to some degree, the trash and debris level. On the liquor standpoint, selling liquor is one thing but it also has the possibilities, and I do stress possibilities, of drawing the undesirable element and possibly drinking behind the store after hours. Part of the problem we have is we have no barriers between the store and our complex. We have talked to the store manager, to some degree, and tried to resolve some of these things at some point and time. We haven't come to any solutions as yet. I would like for my other board members to voice their concerns. Thank you. Gregg Hettel, 29506 Clarita, also in the Woods of Livonia. As far as looking at the liquor license, we have looked at a lot of the aspects of what it is going to bring. We have already looked at the aspects of what Farmer Jack has brought. I do agree, it is a very nice store. But if you are to go to the back area, which is what we have to deal with, and the trash and the problems. We already have increased traffic of people coming through our area. We have had a number of cars keyed, vandalism, bottles broken and we do have police traffic behind the building itself. There are problems that the building has brought. We appreciate that we were notified of this because I have talked to a lot of people and Farmer Jack moved in without us having an opportunity to express our concerns. We have expressed our concerns directly to Farmer Jack and I believe we have sent letters to Borman and we have recently gotten some ``. response. We would like to voice our concerns directly to them but we would like to express them to you. Every person who comes into that store, and I'll 17913 get to the liquor also, right now we have a lot of trash and things like. Right now, we do have people passing. We do have beer bottles and things like that. If the back area is being avoided, I have worked in a liquor store in my past, people who are going into liquor stores tend to go in, buy something and linger in the area, go back in and get another bottle. Not to say, that this is going to happen but I am saying, it does. I can attest to that. Also, do we need another liquor store? I recently saw a sign for a liquor store about two blocks north on Middlebelt Road opposite of Livonia Mall, near the BoRics area. This is within walking distance. If this is going to be a convenience for the liquor customer, is it going to be a walking convenience, which could also bring more traffic through our area. If you look at the pictures that Gary presented to you, the problem that we have is with the traffic with people walking through our areas is that they came into an area where there is very little divider. On our side, looking at their building, there is about a six foot wall. On their side, if you can get a grasp from the picture, there is about a 2 to 2-1/2 foot wall on their side. We have the debris. We have people who can just jump over it. In the current state, we just don't see granting them a little bit more business with a certain element which I don't want to say is bad, or good, but I personally am seeing, by bringing more people in, in its current state without creating some type of barrier whether it is a greenbelt or whatever, I don't think you want that type of suggestion, but I do think in current state, granting them a liquor license, or the use of one, would be premature. I really would like to express our opinions directly to them before you decide on this. °r•► Mr. McCann: Thank you. Lisa Risko, 29688 Clarita. That is directly behind Farmer Jack. My front window looks at the back of their building. I am very opposed to this proposal as well as the one that is coming up, as well as the contingent of the Clarita residents behind me because we are forced to put up with many problems that have arisen since Farmer Jack has moved into our neighborhood. By approving this proposal as well as the one that is about to come before you, I believe that there will be an escalation of these problems. More specifically, an increase of undesirable people parking and loitering in the back of Farmer Jack, leaving Woods of Livonia residents, which includes senior citizens, widows, small children and single residents, uneasy relative to their safety. There will be unwanted trash flying over this two foot retaining wall which you can see literally in the pictures which were passed out by Gary and an increase in the noise all day and all night. We also feel that there will be unwelcome people slipping over this two foot wall that separates these two properties and there will be a continuation of cars as well as loitering within and cutting through our complex. As stated before, I am very opposed to these proposals. It ultimately depreciates our property values. Thank you. Barbara Zillick,29668 Clarita, I live right behind Farmer Jack. They built their loading zone in my back yard. My bedroom window is right there. They start delivering their goods at 6:00 a.m., sometimes 5:00 a.m. and this goes on the rest of the day. I have to pick up the litter because the fence is so low on their side. We 17914 get all that debris and they are very careless. We do not need the liquor license because that will bring in bad elements and we are all senior citizens that live in the building behind there where they can get over the fence and come in on us. We have that fear. I am sorry. I have to oppose this. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. I am going to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Taormina, for our information, even though it is not relevant to tonight's petition, I would like to have the site plan looked at to see what the requirements were for the barrier wall to the rear of the building and see if it is in compliance. I am going to give the petitioner the last opportunity to speak. Sir, is there anything you would like to respond to? Mr. Lord: Yes. The problems, which were addressed by the individuals who spoke in opposition to this particular request, were of a nature which really doesn't have much of a bearing on the SDD license request. The SDD license request and the type of customer we generally sell to for this type of merchandise are not the type of people who necessarily run into the store, pick up a bottle, a pint or a fifth whatever it is and run out back and drink it. It is not that convenient to get through the Farmer Jack and many people would prefer to go to a party store if that is the type of beverage they are looking for. As far as the other items, the messy parking lot, the debris and so forth, Fanner Jack leases the property. We don't own the property. We can deal with the property owner, they are responsible for the common area maintenance of the parking lot. We can request that they increase litter '�•- collection to facilitate a cleaner parking lot. Certainly, any problems which are of a nature of people cutting through the neighborhoods may be a problem which exists regardless of whether the Farmer Jack were there or not. Certainly, if people want to cut through the property, they have the availability of crossing through the property. I would also suggest that if anyone would like to address their problems directly to the company, I would be more than happy to meet with them outside the chambers and I will give them cards to facilitate their ability to get together with the company and resolve our problems. Thank you. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #7-145-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-22 by Borman's Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack#771, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a SDD license in connection with a retail facility located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-02-22 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use `,o,, is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 17915 2. That this area of the City is currently well served with SDD licensed establishments; 3. That there is no demonstrated need for the use of a SDD license at this location; 4. That the proposed use of a SDD license is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: I think when the petitioner said that they have 100 stores and only 21 have SDD, for my situation, that puts the nail in the coffin. It is only 21%and I am surprised that it is that high. I just don't think Farmer Jack or any other grocery chain needs a liquor license in the store because they have so many different products that they do so well, that I don't think liquor is needed in that store. Mr. Shane: I just want to echo Mr. Alanskas's comments and say one more thing. Unless I am sadly mistaken, there is no other Fanner Jack in the City of `tft. Livonia that has a liquor license. Mr. Piercecchi: In regard to the comment that was made by Mrs. Koons that currently our City is well served, for the benefit of the people that are interested there are currently 35 SDD establishments in Livonia. I say that is quite a few. Mr. McCann: In addition to Mr. Piercecchi's comment, I think that area of town is well served as well. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the Livonia City Council. ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-05-02-23 Borman's, Inc., (Farmer Jack#771) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-02-23 by Borman's, Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack#771, requesting waiver use approval to display seasonal outdoor garden materials on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 17916 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Inspection Department, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 6, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The petition is unclear as to the location of the display. If it is a walkway location the display is limited to bedding plants (flowers and vegetables) and potted shrubs. The area must be designated and also must not interfere with safe vehicular and pedestrian access (including barrier free access). (2) The petition does not specify the date(s) requested Without a Zoning Variance the display is limited to April f` through October 1St Other than as noted above this Department has no further objections to the Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second item is a letter from the Division of Police, dated June 23, 2000, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition and after having talked to a manager of Farmer Jack, it is our understanding that the display will only extend four or five feet from the exterior along the front of the building. This will still allow adequate room on the sidewalk for pedestrian movement. The Police Department has no objection to this request for a seasonal outdoor display." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to our request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: "That part of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,Michigan more particularly described as beginning at a point distant South 89°52'00" West, 493.92 feet from the Northeast 1/4 corner of Section 11 and proceeding thence South 00°03'00"East, 658.38 feet; thence South 89°52'00" West, 724.45 feet; thence North 00°03'00" West, 658.38 feet;thence North 89052'00"East, 724.45 feet to the point of beginning, excluding the North 60.00 feet thereof We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire& Rescue Division, dated July 11, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to display seasonal outdoor displays of garden materials on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Carl Schwab, 30803 Pierce, Garden City. I am representing Farmer Jack 29751, Seven Mile Road. `- Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your outdoor display? 17917 Mr. Schwab: It would be limited to several times a year, pumpkins, potted plants, no furniture or anything like that. It is just seasonal items, watermelons at the Fourth of July, so on and so forth. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, you've got 63,120 sq. ft. in that building. Couldn't you sell those products inside the building? Mr. Schwab: Depending on the item, a lot of them are sold inside but if we are talking Fourth of July, we may need 20 pallets of watermelons. I don't have room for 20 pallets of watermelons inside. At Halloween, it is pumpkins. We may get a whole semi of pumpkins in. We need a large area to put them in and there is a short time to sell it. Mr. Alanskas: Usually, when we allow seasonal items it usually is plant materials, top soil etc., but we never had a request to sell watermelons Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day and if we start letting different stores do this on the outside, the City is going to look like it is not a City. If you were pressed for space, I would say that it one thing but having 63,000 sq. ft. for a grocery store, I don't see why if you had 20 skids of watermelons at one time, why don't you get ten and then when they are gone get another 10 skids. I am not trying to tell you how to run your business. I just don't think it is needed to have this display outside of your building. Mr. McCann: Sir, do you sell fresh flowers out there as well? Mr. Schwab: In the spring we have what we call hanging baskets around Mother's Day. Again, we probably get in 20 skids of them and they need to be watered. That is something you would want to put outside for the simple reason when we are watering the water drips through the plants. The ones you hang outside in your yard, whether or not enclosed, if you water them the water is going to come right through the plants. That is something we would want to put outside. Mr. McCann: You are the renter of the location? Mr. Schwab: I am the store manager. Mr. McCann: There is a consideration by the Planning Commission to make a friendly amendment if we do approve it. That would be requiring that the wall to the rear of building, the protective wall, conform to the City Ordinance. That is not two feet above the ground from your view. It would be five feet minimum. Is that correct Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. 17918 Mr. McCann: Would you be able to work that out with the landlord to make sure that wall comes to five feet to protect the neighbors from your side. That is what the Ordinance says, I believe it is Section 18.45 of the Livonia Ordinance. That is what it is suppose to be, a minimum of five feet from your side. Mr. Schwab: I can contact my divisional Vice President first thing tomorrow and let him know your concerns and he can get the ball rolling. He can get with whoever he needs to get in touch with. Mr. McCann: I think those arrangements could be made by the time you got to Council if we tried to move you through tonight. Mr. Schwab: I can't make that decision myself. I am only the manager there but it is something that I can bring to his attention. The concerns of the neighbors is something we have all been working on. They do know about the concerns of the neighbors. I have talked to my district manager several times about it. Mr. McCann: It concerns me because a two foot wall does not protect the neighbors. Mr. Schwab: I questioned that too but if you look at it from their side, if we were to extend ours to five feet, it would probably make theirs ten feet. I don't know what their side would look like looking at a ten-foot wall. Mr. McCann: Keeping trash, as they say and keeping debris from coming into their yards, it would be much more effective. Mr. Schwab: We do make a very large effort. I send a bagger around every morning with a trash bag to pick up the trash and I just talked to Mr. Kalosis the other day. I was unaware until just the other day, there is a natural wind tunnel to the east of the building. I never see the trash there. We did hop the wall yesterday and get it out of there and that is something that I instructed the bagger to check on every day. We do professional sweeping every other day of that lot. I do try to keep that parking lot clean. Mr. McCann: We may look to an alternative resolution to protect them. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Gary Kalosis, 29570 Clarita. We don't want to reiterate too much of what we said earlier because some of our concerns were addressed earlier pretty much in regards to both of these proposals and across the fence, we are working on a project and he was unaware of the area we were talking about. We just want to resolve the issue. We want to be neighbors, in other words. We do want to address the other issue of the sea gulls. I used to live in an apartment but my landlord didn't want to come and clean it for me so maybe they can come up with a different solution for that also. A couple of my co-owners have mentioned to me about this machine that goes around at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. waking them. Which I realize is a necessary issue but we don't know at So „ this time. We just want to talk. One of my board members also has a possible solution for the back wall. Thank you. 17919 Lisa Risko, 29688 Clarita. I am opposed to this proposal as well because I feel, as well as the Clarita contingent, we are already forced to put up with many of these problems that we already addressed in the previous proposal. By approving the current proposal before you, I believe that these problems that we already put with will only increase, such as the increase in the noise. Again, unwanted trash coming over the two foot retaining wall, an increase in the people that are loitering around and cutting through our complex. What I would like to see is the proposal of a potential wall that is five feet on their side be aesthetically pleasing which would not depreciate the value of ours, such as trees. Looking at a five foot wall, which would be ten feet on our side,which would not help appreciate our value but would only depreciate it, as would the approval of this proposal. Thank you. Albert Lord, Borman's Inc., 18718 Borman Ave., Detroit. I had the impression before that these individuals had attempted to address these problems with somebody at corporate headquarters. We, of course, do not want to alienate the neighbors of any of our facilities. Again, I will reiterate, if they have some problems, please meet me outside the conference room here and I will be more than happy to get them in contact with people to resolve the problem including the wall problem. I was totally unaware that there is a wall problem. If we are in violation of some particular City Ordinance or requirement of the City, if somebody in the Planning Department or if somebody in the City government could notify us of that, I would be more than happy to forward that on to the appropriate parties. I did not mean to imply that because the landlord won't `- clean up the parking lot, if that is a problem, we'll make sure that it is cleaned up. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there is nobody else wishing to speak, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: My reason for denying this, and I commend Borman's for coming in, most people would go ahead and have outside storage and wouldn't even ask for our permission. My position is, the sidewalks were put there for pedestrians and traffic. They weren't put there for outside storage and use it for selling of items. To me, we are jeopardizing the safety of the customers going to that store and allowing outside storage there. Especially when you are talking about watermelons and things that can roll and roll out and somebody could trip over it and get injured. Therefore, I am opposed to this proposal. Mr. Alanskas: I too will be supporting the denying resolution. Believe me,I am not picking on Farmer Jack because I think they do a wonderful job with their facility and facilities in this City. However, I just don't think grocery stores and gas stations should be allowed to sell products on the outside because it is just giving them more additional space and square footage on the outside. I don't think it is right. Through the Chair, Mr. Taormina, one lady in the back said that delivery trucks come at 5:00 a.m. I could be wrong but I think in the `�.. approving resolution from the Council they said that trucks could not come before 8:00 a.m. Would you check on that? I would appreciate it. 17920 Mrs. Koons: It is with a little regret that I will also be supporting this denying resolution. I appreciate it that Fanner Jack asked. I think almost every grocery store I go to, and I visit almost all of them, does have some kind of outdoor display without asking and without having permission, number one. And number two, I do think it adds to the excitement of the season to see pumpkins, watermelons and flowers and I do not oppose the outside display. I do think Farmer Jack has some work to do with the neighbors and I acquiesce to their need to work things out with Farmer Jack and if this comes before us again, with the neighbors support, I would also be happy to support it. Thank you. Mr. Shane: I would like to echo my fellow Commissioners. I have a general opposition to this type of activity in any large retail store, whether it is Fanner Jack or anyone else. I just think it is something that should not be permitted. It just doesn't go towards having a good aesthetic feeling in the neighborhood when you have these kinds of activities outside. Mr. McCann: I guess I am more along the lines with Mrs. Koons except I am against the motion and supporting the idea of having outside storage. I think it is traditional for grocery stores to have plants, to have pumpkins and to have flowers hanging during Mother's Day. It is very common to go out and buy those. I don't think the pumpkins or flowers distract at all from the use of the store and I think they add to the outside. To me it is a traditional part of shopping. It is not an unreasonable request on their behalf. I am concerned the issue before us is whether or not the neighbors are being taken care of. If \.. we deny this, we don't help the neighbors out with regard to the trash and rear of the building and the concerns of the wall. I think there is a possible solution out there. Therefore, I am going to make a tabling resolution so that Borman's would have an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and come up with a reasonable solution that would benefit both them and the neighbors. They can discover what the problems are with regard to early unloading or whether or not there is a sweeper coming in at 3:00 a.m. or not. Those issues can all be worked on and I think we can come up with a reasonable use for the goods out front. The sidewalk is sufficiently wide to have an isle there that wouldn't interfere with pedestrian traffic. Therefore, I am making a tabling resolution. On a motion by Mr. McCann, supported by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-23 by Borman's, Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack#771, requesting waiver use approval to display seasonal outdoor garden materials on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-02-23 be tabled. `�.. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: 17921 AYES: McCann, Piercecchi, Koons NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the vote three to three. The tabling motion doesn't pass. I think we have to call the motion to deny. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was #7-146-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-02-23 by Borman's, Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack#771, requesting waiver use approval to display seasonal outdoor garden materials on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-02-23 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a need for outdoor display of merchandise; and �.- 3. That the petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed use will be conducted in a manner that will insure that the walkway is sufficiently free of obstructions at all times so as to provide safe and direct pedestrian access to and from the building. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, Alanskas, Koons, LaPine NAYS: Piercecchi, McCann ABSENT: None FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have ten days to appeal, in writing, the denying decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. At that time they will take a review of it, if that is what you wish to do. Possibly by that time, some of these issues could be resolved if that is, in fact, what you do. `�•• ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-06-02-24 Mark Chanitz (Panera Bread) 17922 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-02-24 by Mark Chanitz, on behalf of Panera Bread, requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant proposed to be located on the south side of 'tow Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described as beginning at a point distant South 1°54'43"East, 362.59 feet; thence North 88°05'17"East, 70.00 feet;thence North 20°34'19"East, 65.55 feet; thence North 65°30'34"East, 63.70 feet; thence North 88°00'00"East, 128.22 feet; thence North 84°56'42"East, 626.96 feet; thence North 84°56'42"East, 43811 feet; thence North 84°20'12"East, 250.00 feet; thence South 2°08'09"East, 72.00 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 25 and proceeding thence South 2'08'09" East, 56.00 feet; thence North 87°51'51"East, 100.00 feet; thence North 2°08'09" West, 56.00 feet; thence South 87°51'51" West, 100.00 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested" The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 27, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed a copy of the site plan indicated above. The copy of the site plan provided for review is too small to determine whether the parking spaces (handicap and regular) are the proper size as required by ordinance. Based upon proposed seating only 78 parking spaces are required Handicap parking signs are required for each handicap space by City Ordinance. There is no indication as to the number of employees so we are unable to determine the total number of spaces required We would recommend placement of a stop sign at the southeast corner of the building where the rear parking intersects with the driveway. We also recommend placement of a stop sign where the two driveways intersect east of the proposed site. The site plan does not indicate exterior lighting. We would request receiving an enlarged site plan so that a proper review of the parking area can be conducted" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter from the Inspection Department, dated July 10, 2000, reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 5, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted This Department has no objection to this petition. Signage has not been reviewed as part of this petition. I trust this provides the requested information. The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The fourth letter from the Livonia Fire&Rescue Division, dated July 11, 2000, reads as 17923 follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to open a full service restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Chanitz, with Panera Bread, 2433 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, Missouri. I am here this evening to petition for a waiver use of the said restaurant. I question the statement that it is a full service restaurant but I guess it has to be worked out in the details. For anyone who is not familiar with our concept, we have roughly 12 restaurants in the greater Michigan/Detroit area. We just opened one up in Lansing about two weeks. The closest one, I believe, is just down the street at Six Mile and Newburgh. We are a bakery cafe concept. We do not do any frying on premises. We bake only, coffee, baked goods, bagels and in the afternoon we switch over to a lunch concept of soup, salads and sandwiches. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what would your hours of operation be there? Mr. Chanitz We would open at 7:00 a.m., would be typical, and close at 9:00 p.m. r.• Mr. Alanskas: So 9:00 p.m. would be the latest that you would have the patio being used on the outside and that would only be during the summer months? Mr. Chanitz: That is right. Mr. LaPine: The restaurant at this location, is it basically the same layout and same type of operation as the operation at Six Mile and Newburgh? Mr. Chanitz: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Is it basically the same square footage or is it a little larger? Mr. Chanitz: It is probably a little bit larger. This one is about 4200 sq. ft. and I would imagine that that one is a little less than 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. LaPine: Where do you think you are going to generate your biggest amount of customers from, traffic along the Jeffries, the service drive or from the center itself? Mr. Chanitz: If I had to place my bet, it would be from the center itself. Restaurants, as a whole, are not destination spots so to draw that impulse buyer you have to have name recognition or some type of draw from the streets. 17924 Mr. LaPine: Because there are so many people going to be working back where the warehouse is going to be, a lot of your business will probably be people coming in in the morning picking up coffee and rolls and going on to their business. Mr. Chanitz: Correct. Yes. That will be a large percentage. Mr. Alanskas: I frequent your store on Newburgh very often. Are you going to have adequate people for the traffic volume you are going to have coming in the store? Because, this has nothing to do with your petition tonight, at lunchtime, if a person who only has half an hour, I am just telling you so you will know, they are there for 45 minutes, that kind of hurts people coming back to your facility for future lunches or whatever. I am just hoping, because your store is bigger, I am hoping you will have more people working in there to take care of your customers. Mr. Chanitz: From an operational side, I am on the designing and construction side, I can pass that information on. I am sure that is just a function of managing the operation to a better degree to where you would staff up during the peak hours and staff back down during the slower hours. Typically, I heard it was mentioned that there was a question as to what the staff is at a restaurant. It ranges between 15 and 25 employees. Mr. Alanskas: I will count them tomorrow. `r.- Mr. Chanitz: I mean total employees. You will never see that many employees on site. At any given time you will be hard pressed to see 6 to 8 employees. Mr. Taormina: Just a point of clarification for the benefit of the petitioner. It was referred to as a full service restaurant. By definition it is classified as a full service restaurant based on the number of customer seats Mr. Chanitz: I just wanted to make sure. Some municipalities determine that by if you serve alcohol and if you have late evening meals. Mr. McCann: No. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody wishing to speak. I am going to closes the Public Hearing. Do you have any last comment? Mr. Chanitz: I think there were a couple of reservations that were made by others that reviewed our plans concerning the patio and that we have made amendments to it. I have that with me tonight. I would like to pass that out. But basically it is in keeping with what was originally sent to you. It is just a little more refined. It didn't get any larger and there are no additional exterior seats. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. r.. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was 17925 #7-147-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-06-02-24 by Mark Chanitz, on behalf of Panera Bread, requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant proposed to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-02-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That there shall be a limitation of 129 seats inside the building and 27 outside seats for a total seating capacity of 156 seats; 2) That the revised patio plan submitted by Panera Bread, Inc., dated July 24, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the landscaping shown on the above referenced Revised Patio Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A3 prepared by Eisenberg Architects, Inc., dated July 13, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except as modified under condition 5 below; 5) That wall signage similar to the renderings on the Elevations Plan is `r.r approved, which may be either one (1) or two (2) wall signs, provided that the total area of all such signs does not exceed forty-two (42) square feet, and further provided that the petitioner seek the granting of a variance for an excess number of wall signs if two (2) wall signs are desired; 6) That the proposed awnings shall be illuminated only by means of downward directed lighting from above with no internal illumination; 7) That stop signs be placed at the southeast corner of the building where the rear parking intersects with the driveway and where the two driveways intersect east of the proposed site, as recommended in the correspondence dated July 27, 2000 from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police; 8) That all other conditions and requirements set forth in the original resolution granting site plan approval for the "Retail I"building shall be adhered to; and 9) That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. For the following reasons: 17926 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 slow of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-06-02-25 MIOP, Inc. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-02-25 by MIOP, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to install a 130 ft. wireless communications antenna for shared usage, and its accompanying equipment shelter on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Fire Mile Road and Wentworth Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14. \.- Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr.Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 29, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 23, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The petition states parking is taken and replaced but does not show the replacement Their actual parking requirements should be clarified (2) The petition shows conflicting information in regards to fencing including prohibited barber wire. The type and site of fencing should be clarified (3) The petition proposes landscaping that is not defined as to site and type, so; therefore, more detail is needed Other than as noted above, the Department has no further objection to this petition. I trust this will provide the requested �.. information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 17, 2000, and reads 17927 as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter if signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire `40." &Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to install a 130 foot wireless communication antenna and accompanying shelter on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dave Schneider, 29150 Buckingham, Livonia. I wanted to just briefly explain a little bit about our company. How we got here, through the Cell Tower Committee. You will see a few names associated with our application so I just want to straighten it out. Trintel is our umbrella corporation based in Irving, Texas. That is who I work for. They own three different companies that are all involved in a wireless industry. SDS Wireless, whose name may be on the application, is a site acquisition and zoning site services company for the wireless industry. All the people over here, the companies you see are customers of ours in one form or another. This board is a little old as you can see. Air Touch is now Verizon. Omnipoint is now Voice Stream. The business moves on fairly quickly. Trinity Wireless Services is a construction and construction management company in the wireless industry. They too utilize these companies as customers as well as other companies out west as Soar well as through the whole country. Trinity Wireless Towers is our construction ownership and maintenance company. MIOP, the name on the application, is fully owned by Trinity Wireless Towers. Trintel's business corporate office is located in Irving, Texas. Trintel's operational office is operated right here in Livonia. So we are not only the only Michigan carrier or tower company in the country, we are the only one located in Livonia. We are a home company and I guess that is why we got started doing this. We took a little different approach to how we do business than the other carriers and companies. My background is an urban planner. I was with Ann Arbor and Canton Township. Lived in Livonia my whole life and when we started doing this work, because of that, we said, "Let's bring in planners and work with communities ahead of time before the market and the carriers get into a community. Actually start doing master plans for what we consider wireless infrastructure. We are not just talking about car phones. We are talking about what is coming down the line. By the year 2004 they are saying the wireless internet, the broad band internet, is going to be a$250,000,000,000 a year industry. They are going to need these facilities as well. What we did, we started off with Livonia, we since have done Ann Arbor, Southfield and we are about to do Canton. We've done Beaver Creek, Ohio and believe it or not, we are on our way down to Waco, Texas to do a master plan for them. What we did, we inventoried what is there in the city and didn't classify it by carrier. We didn't say here is where all Nextel sites are and here is where all `„„ Sprint sites are. We classified it by where the towers that are usable for collocation in the city are. In other words there is infrastructure that if one of 17928 the carriers comes in, there is a facility there for them to use, most likely. I can't say that I can do their RF design. Basically, the little yellow dots that you see are either older towers that are full or in some cases, like the two up here by Eight Mile are only 75 foot monopoles. They are too small for anybody else to use. They were built 10 years ago before the big boom. The blue circles are rooftops and the green circles are towers that are identified that have space left on them for at least one, possibly two or three other carriers. So you are not going to need a tower in this area for a while because there are three of them right there for them to jump on. All these carriers, all these tower companies have master lease agreements in place with each other. They all utilize each other's sites. When doing this we identified two rather small areas in the City that have holes and one rather large area which is when I am on my way to a Council session in a couple of weeks to talk to them about doing a deal on a public piece of property there. The one area that is open is down here where Nextel got denied at the skating rink. That is still going to be a problem. Somebody is going to have to do something about it and we are trying to do something by going along up here on Plymouth Road and finding an alternative to that Nextel site. The third area is right in here, the stretch between Merriman and Inkster along Five Mile and that is why we went after this site. We went in there to develop a site that will take care of everybody. Everything we build holds four to six carriers. We are in the business to build as few towers as possible with as many people on them as we can get. It just happens to coincide with the City's policy for collocation. This site basically, Mark kind of described it, sits along the back. It is a fairly short tower. This is primarily a coverage tower for a small area but it is more `., importantly a capacity site and if you are familiar with capacity issues, if you have phones and you are driving down the street, you look at it, you have coverage, your phone is showing five bars and all of a sudden the call just drops. What is happening is that the phone call is trying to hand off from one site to the next. The next site is full so the call is just called "blocked". It tries to get to the next antenna, there is nowhere for it to go so it just drops. The way you fix that is you put more sites in between. The good news is that these sites can get lower because their primary objective is simply to hand the phone call off from one site to the next, not to provide a great deal of coverage. That is why this site has to be only 130 feet tall. I figure we can probably get three people, possibly a fourth, on this site. In the future, if someone really just needs it as a quick capacity site, in five or six years from now, somebody will be able to come in and do 80 feet. In the City of Detroit they are doing 75 feet, because there are so many sites. They have them every half a mile. Livonia hasn't gotten to that point yet. Obviously we still have coverage holes. I live within a half mile of this site and my phone doesn't work so well at my house. Basically, it is in the back corner. The access easement just comes straight down the driveway. Because this is a tight site and I want to be able to get people into it, we have had to put in two gates. There wasn't enough room inside the lease area for people to be able to come in one gate and get through the other shelters. We have kind of run the lease area around the fenced in area. We will have a gate on this side as well % . as a gate here, this gate servicing these two and this gate servicing this. This is conceptual in the fact that I don't know all four carriers that are going to go 17929 on this. If Sprint were to come in, for instance, they don't use shelters. They would put a cabinet out there. With a cabinet out there that may open up the area for a fifth carrier. Some carriers use small cabinets and some use `,,,• shelters. The utilities come in along the north property, right down the property line and straight across the back. Basically, that is the site and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Alanskas: Referring to your first board, showing all of your customers, I may need some clarification. Isn't it true that you can only have three locators, besides yourself on a pole? Mr. Schneider: No. You have to have a minimum of three carriers. Mr. Alanskas: So you are saying you can use all those customers on an existing pole? Mr. Schneider: No. Every pole has its structural limitation. We build for a minimum of four. That is four full blown, what they call broad band wireless customers. Mr. Alanskas: You can only take four of those customers that you show on that board to use that pole. Mr. Schneider: No. That is not true. If they come in with a full array of equipment, we order our towers to handle four carriers based on a typical full array, that is 12 antennas, each carrier puts up 12 antennas. If they come in and don't put that much equipment on it, then it is just one big formula. Everybody that we ,,` have to add you do a structural analysis to see if they can fit. Omnipoint, which is now Voice Stream, has been using some smaller equipment on all of their sites. If that was the case, if they were to do that here, then that may open that up for one of the paging companies to go up there. Mr. Alanskas: Through the Chair, Mark, do we allow all of those antennas on these poles? Where they can put 12 or 15 antennas up there? Mr. Taormina: Once the tower is constructed, the antennas are considered a permitted use. Any collocation, as long as it is structurally feasible would be permitted. Mr. LaPine: If you have four cellular phone companies on that pole, does each one of them have to have their own building? Mr. Schneider: Either a shelter or a cabinet. That is correct. Just like every other facility in the City is that way. Mr. LaPine: So basically, you build the towers and then you sub-lease space to these other companies? Is that basically what you do? Mr. Schneider: Right. That is where the industry has gotten to. The companies just can't afford to go out and construct as many as they need. So now there are tower companies and there are a lot of them. There are five publicly held tower �"' companies. We are the largest privately held tower company in the country. 17930 Mr. LaPine: Is that five tower companies throughout the whole country that build most of the whole towers in the whole country? Mr. Schneider: Yes. There are five public and we are the next biggest and we are private. We are number six in the country but we are the biggest privately held. Mr. LaPine: I understand. I would like to say that you made a very good presentation. I learned more tonight than I ever knew about these towers. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I see there is nobody wishing to speak. One of the things for the people in the audience, we show that we are within 200 feet from the nearest residential area. Is that correct Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Approximately 250 feet from the nearest house. Mr. McCann: And we are talking about a 130 foot tower, correct? Mr. Schneider: Correct. Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was r.. #7-148-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2000, on Petition 2000-06-02-25 by MIOP, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to install a 130 ft. wireless communications antenna for shared usage, and its accompanying equipment shelter on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Fire Mile Road and Wentworth Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000- 06-02-25 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan, notes and details sheet, marked SP-1 prepared by Atwell-Hicks, Inc., with a revision date of June 19, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the compound plan, details and elevation sheet, marked Sheet SP-2 prepared by Atwell-Hicks, Inc., with a revision date of June 19, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the barbed wire shown at the top of the chain link fence enclosing the lease area is not approved and shall not be installed; 3) That the landscaping proposed for the 5 foot wide landscape buffer just outside the fence along the north and east line of the fence area, which shall consist of seven(7) Austrian Pine trees a minimum of six(6) feet in 17931 height, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; �.. 4) That all equipment shelter buildings shall be constructed with full face 4" brick on all four sides, no exceptions; 5) That a new dumpster enclosure, to be constructed at the extreme northwest corner of the Cambridge Group site, shall be of masonry construction with wood gates which shall be properly maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; and 6) That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. For the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.42A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items. ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-07-08-10 St. Colette Roman Catholic Church Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-08-10 St. Colette Roman Catholic Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing activities building located at 17600 Newburgh Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Taormina: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to the activity building of the St. Colette Roman Catholic Church. The subject site is located across the street from the Laurel Park Place Mall and just to the south of the Livonia School's Dickinson Center. The St. Colette Church compound is basically made up of three separate stand-alone buildings, not including the 17932 garage. The existing church and the rectory building both sit out towards Newburgh Road. Behind these buildings, approximately 280 ft. back, sits the existing activity building. The area between these buildings is where the church's existing parking lot is located. The activity building, as it stands now, is 16,900 sq. ft. in size. St. Colette is proposing to construct a 25,200 sq. ft. addition to the east (rear) elevation. Once completed, the entire structure would become a total of 42,100 sq. ft. in area. According to the submitted floor plan this new addition would provide the church with additional classrooms, meeting rooms and a fairly large area identified on the plan as"Youth Ministry Center/Assembly Room". The site plan does show a 3,808 sq. ft. building addition outlined in a dash line next to the proposed addition. This addition is labeled "Future Gym" and is not considered part of this proposal. Part of the existing parking lot and baseball diamond behind the existing activity building would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. To make up for the loss parking, the section of the parking lot to the south of the activity building would be expanded. The site plan shows 36 spaces in a dotted pattern around the outer edge of the proposed expanded parking lot area. The plan identifies these spaces as "Future Parking Spaces", presumably to be implemented should ever the foreseen gymnasium be constructed. Presently there is a nice thick growth of very large evergreen trees along the south property line screening the church from the abutting residential homes. The plan does show additional plant materials would be installed within the greenbelt area between the neighborhood and the new enlarged structure. Also the courtyards of the new addition and some areas up next to the building would be landscaped. The exterior building elevation plan shows and notes that the proposed addition would be constructed out of building materials that would match that of the existing structure. The existing activity building is mainly built out a burnished block material. The new addition would be constructed out of the burnished block and dryvit would be installed around the windows very similar to the existing structure. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 18, 2000, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap spaces must be individually posted according to the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated July 19, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to provide fire flow water saw supply for 42,100 sq.ft. on property located at the above referenced address. 17933 We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 20, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your `1.w request of July 12, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) There is currently a dumpster on site without a dumpster enclosure. Provision should be made for proper screening and location of said dumpster. (2) The parking areas need sealing, maintenance, double striping and proper location of all barrier free parking. (3) Sheet L-1, note #9 should be revised to read "sod only". (4) New light poles are detailed as 25 feet tall. The height should be clarified to the Planning Commission's satisfaction. Other than as noted above, this Department has no further objection to this petition. I trust this will provide the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the Petitioner here this evening? Bonnie Scott, representing Harold H. Fisher&Associates, 19959 Vernier Road, Harper Woods, MI., representing Father Roodbeen of St. Colette Roman Catholic Church. Mr. McCann: Do you have some colored renderings to show us this evening? Ms. Scott: Yes. I also have pictures to show the building in greater detail. The existing building is a single story building. It has a definite roof line already of some `.. of this metal fascia panels that we are also replicating and complimenting in the new structure. This large area back here represents the gymnasium that has been decided to be in the future. This is the front of the building. We are adding around the backside of the building and to the side. It is within the site itself so there is not a big impact on the main streets. We have the burnish block area, which is a masonry product that we are replicating off the existing and matching. Then we have another product which is called EIFF which is similar to a stucco product that also replicates part of the existing building so that we are complimenting it throughout. On the side here, we have a new entrance in addition to the existing entrance that is adjacent to the expanded parking area so that some of the traffic will not be just from the front side but also from the side to better service the needs of the parish. Mr. McCann: Do you have a landscape plan for us this evening? Ms. Scott: Yes. Actually the landscape plan that was submitted to you, is a little bit further detailed per the Ordinance than this one is. This is a conceptual plan. But in essence what this amounts to is the front of the building is here. The new addition is shaded in brown. We have this additional parking area set up here. We will have trees in landscaped areas within the parking lot as well as some different landscaping over here. We have a residential on the side and way to the back,Newburgh Road, technically, would be at the floor down �.. here. This is a representation of the actual landscaping but it is more detailed on the plans that were submitted. 17934 Mr. McCann: How far does St. Colette's property go beyond the parking lot there, to the east. Mr. Taormina: About 450 feet. Ms. Scott: There is a creek in there also. Mr. McCann: I am concerned if there is space available for parking if the demands aren't met by the additional parking you have here, you can go back up to 450 feet for additional parking, correct? Ms. Scott: No. We have a creek there. I guess you could build over the creek but certainly that was not the intent. Mr. McCann: How far back is the creek? Ms. Scott: If we have 450 feet back here, you can see that we are at an angle so you can probably split that difference. Were you talking about expanding it this way? Mr. McCann: Yes. Ms. Scott: They do have ball fields that they also want to maintain, the recreational aspect of the property. I am going to guesstimate this area right here, maybe there is 250 feet, approximately. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, will we be approving, if we chose to approve this proposal tonight, the future land use of the gym also? Mr. Taormina: No. I would suggest that since the gymnasium identified on the plan as a future addition and there is very little detail provided relative to the gymnasium, that it should be brought back to the Planning Commission in the future for detail review. Mr. Alanskas: What are we talking about in the future? Two years down the road? Three years? Do you have any idea? Ms. Scott: I am not sure when that is going to be. We had discussed it. They had hoped to build it now but it was decided that we would delay that. I hate to predict the future. I really don't know. Mr. Alanskas: I have a few questions for the Father. Father Henry Roodbeen, 17600 Newburgh Road. Mr. Alanskas: Father when you go to 42,000 sq. ft., do you think you are going to have any problem with parking in regards to different functions in the same evening? 17935 Father Roodbeen: Most of the time all of our activities are at different times. Most of the church is on the weekends. Our religious study programs are during the ``.. afternoons and evenings. The ball field is used at nights and that is usually after religious classes are done. At this point, all of our functions seem to be at different times. Mr. Alanskas: How about when you add on to this large building of 25,000 sq. ft. you are going to have more people in there and they have to come by car, presuming. So don't you think you would have to have more parking? Father Roodbeen: For our religious education classes, the kids are dropped off. They go home and come back and pick up in an hour and a half. Basically, what we are looking at is classroom space. Eight classrooms, three meeting rooms, our meetings, tops, we have 20 people in a meeting. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Ms. Scott: Would you like for me to address the parking? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Ms. Scott: The existing church holds the majority of the people. Of course, we all know that the churches are mainly used on Sunday morning or Saturday evening. That is the largest quantity of people that we have attending and parking in tiw the facility. The school area, back here, which this is an existing activities building and the school area, is not Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. It is an after school hours and for religious education. That area is represented here and this represents all classrooms which is a totally different parking usage than would be the large assembly of the church. The large assembly of the church will never occur when the school classrooms are used in session. Again, if your concern is for the future gym, we can probably increase parking a small amount but even at that, a shared usage of parking would more than accommodate the situation. The assembly that would happen in the church would never also duplicate itself within the gymnasium. So there could be a shared usage of the parking. For example, you wouldn't have a basketball game going on while you are having a full Easter Sunday church service, which is the maximum amount you would have in the church. That is what we base parking on. So those usages would never occur simultaneously. Mr. Alanskas: I know because St. Colette's is my church and when I go to church, for the 10:00 a.m. mass, the parking lot fills very quickly and it empties very quickly. I was just concerned of what the use of the new building would be in case you might have a concurrence of two different functions. I have been there in the evenings when you have parties and you have food catered in and there are a lot of people there. Now Father Roodbeen: Usually, that is at a time when mass is not going on. 17936 Mr. Alanskas: That is correct. wow Ms. Scott: I can tell you that per the Zoning Ordinance we are adding more than you are requesting. Mr. Shane: I just want to let the petitioner know that our concern is based on some other experiences we have had in town with regard to similar facilities meeting the parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance but from a practical standpoint far exceeding them. We just want to make sure that that doesn't happen here. Father Roodbeen: We want to make sure we have enough parking too. Mr. Shane: Of course, in this case we have more land to deal with so that doesn't concern me as much but that is basically our concern is that we always have enough parking. Ms. Scott: One of the comments that I wanted to point out also is that we are required to have 367 spaces. We are providing in this plan 385 spaces and we also have an additional 36 spaces that they can even imply right now. Mr. McCann: But that is based on the rectory, correct? Mr. Taormina: It is based on the amount of seating in the sanctuary but I believe the numbers that she is quoting include the staff for the activity building as well. siva. Ms. Scott: Yes. As we interpreted the code .... Mr. McCann: I understand but you miss the point. I understand that you normally don't use both buildings but many churches do. They will have youth groups right after one mass right before the next mass starts so that people leaving one mass will go back and go for their youth groups. They will go for Sunday school classes, they will go for a Christening luncheons. You will end up with mixed uses and that is the problem. Ward Church, before they left town, they expanded, expanded and expanded but they also had, while mass was going on, they also had different classes going on to the point where the whole building was being used the whole time. That is not your intent but that is not to say that things won't change. That is why we are saying you have land bank area that should the parking arise, you don't have to go park on your neighbor's front lawn. That is our concern. Mr. Alanskas: What is the membership of the church up to now? Father Roodbeen: 2000 families. Mr. LaPine: My concern is like all the Commissioners, about the parking. Actually when you look at the activities building, it is larger than the sanctuary. As soon as I saw that when this plan came in I thought they had to have more parking. They have as much space here as they have for the sanctuary. As Mr. Shane 17937 pointed out, and I'll mention the Ward Church, when they happen to come in and I happen to be on the Zoning Board of Appeals back in those days when the addition came up and I was the only member who opposed it because of r.. the fact that I said they are going to have a parking problem in the future. Everybody else said no, no,no. The pastor at the church at that time said they never expected that and like you are saying tonight, well we don't know what to expect in the future. We don't want to get into a situation where we have parking problems and the people in the neighborhood are coming into City Hall and saying people are parking on my side street, I can't get into my driveway. You do have additional land. That is the one thing you have in your favor. But if you build a big gymnasium and I don't know how big of a gymnasium you are going to build, I guess the other question I heard from the representative of the architect here tonight, mentioned this activity building as a school. Are you going to turn this into a Catholic School? Father Roodbeen: That is the future. I can't tell you that. I don't know. Even if it is a school, the kids would be dropped off. Mr. LaPine: But there would be kids being picked up by buses too. We have to look at this, not only what is happening today but maybe what will happen 10 years from now. That will reflect back on us. Why didn't we think of this ahead of time? I have no objection to your addition, don't get me wrong, it is just that I want to be assured that we are going to be protected and the people in the neighborhoods are going to be protected and that we are not going to have any traffic problems. Father Roodbeen It if comes to that, we can always add more parking. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for against this petition? Seeing nobody, do you have a last comment Ms. Scott? Ms. Scott: The only thing I was going to say about the parking, I thought we had pretty much met the zoning requirements, if there is a clarification as to the actual quantity that you would like to see.... Mr. McCann: No. Everything is fine right now. You've got area that is land banked if you need it. Is there somebody that would like to make a comment? Maureen Casey, 36832 Gardner. My back property is adjacent to St. Colette Church property. I have to tell you I am a little upset because literally what they are proposing is going to affect my home and my neighbors. I am sure if my neighbors knew this meeting was taking place, they would be here also. We were not notified. We have some concerns that I think that are very valid. In speaking with Father Henry on the one occasion, I was never able to get a clear answer as to how this was going to be buffered from the neighborhood. I saw the plans. I don't know if the plans have changed since my husband and I saw them, but I am not really happy about this. In the plans as they were shown to my husband and I, there were no trees, no landscaping 17938 whatsoever that would separate us from them, literally. This smacks of parochial school down the road, especially if the gymnasium goes in. And because this is private property they still have to be, as Father Henry termed �..- it, a good neighbor. A good neighbor would do things to make sure that the surrounding neighbors that are there don't have to listen to the noise. We already deal, as it is, with the mess that blows over through the field and ravine. Another concern of mine is that right now it is all open land. When the rain comes down it hits ground saturation. We have a 30 year old storm runoff drain which is having a hard time dealing with the rain right now. If you put buildings there, there is not going to be any place else for this rain water to go except in my backyard and my neighbor's backyard. It has already happened with very heavy rains. Mr. McCann: With regard to the water runoff, that is an engineering question. You can discuss it with the Engineering Department. They do have to build on that plan. Mrs. Casey: At the time I went to Engineering, they weren't able to give me any answers because they didn't know how ... Mr. McCann: Because the plans hadn't come through. The site plan will have to go through the Council process first and then the Engineering Department will review it and make sure that there is adequate sewer for the property that they are developing. Mrs. Casey: O.K. Mr. LaPine: Did you and your neighbors meet with the church? Did you see the plans and talk about them and your concerns about them? Not only you but other people? Mrs. Casey: Other neighbors had not. Next door to myself, they are wonderful people but they are elderly, so this isn't something they are going to be as upset about. I am because I feel that something should be done much more so. I love the fact that it is open but I understand that things need to change. I have only been in this house for five years. We bought it because we liked the openness of it. But we also would like a little bit of privacy. If the church is going to do this, no matter what I say or how my neighbors feel, but what I feel would be fair would be including in these plans something that would make more of a barrier between the residential and this building. Right now there is a ravine and along the ravine a beautiful existing tree. I have been told by Father Henry that these trees aren't going anywhere but the problem is that these trees lose their leaves and in the winter we get to see straight back to the building that is already there without something more permanent. Something that is going to stay green and what I am proposing is, I want lots of big pine trees or a berm or something that is going to separate us from them. As it is right now, in the wintertime, I can see all of the lights that are on and although they do basically use it only for weekends,there are still 17939 baseball teams that play there, which is wonderful but all of this is going to get moved over and literally be right behind my house. '�- Mr. LaPine: Where do you actually live in relationship to this proposal? Mrs. Casey: Where are your blue prints and I can show you? Mr. Taormina: Actually it would probably be easier for you to point to where you live on that color rendering. Mrs. Casey: I am right here on the other side of the creek. Mr. Alanskas: So you are 450 feet away from the new building? Mrs. Casey: This is the new activity building that is going in. I would like to see something planted along here. (Inaudible). Mrs. Koons: Where are the ball fields? Mrs. Casey: Where the ball fields are right now, they are in this area but they will moved, as I was told, over here. Father Roodbeen: Where the gymnasium would be going up is where the ball diamonds will be, to the east of that. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else? Any last comment? Mrs. Casey: I would just ask you to please include something, pine trees, a berm, something that they will need to maintain so that when the leaves have fallen we don't have to look at this building. We won't have to feel as much of the impact. It is going to be attractive, I am sure but I can tell you on winter nights that for security reasons they leave their lights on inside the building, we can still see those. Mr. McCann: This is something that you can carry on. This is probably going to go on to the City Council so that you will have the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Casey: Will we be notified? Mr. McCann: If you contact the Council Office, they will notify you of the meeting. Mr. LaPine: Can't she leave her name with our secretary? Mrs. Casey: Thank you Mr. LaPine, I appreciate that. Mr. McCann: If there is nothing else, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was 17940 #7-149-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-07-08-10 by St. Colette Roman Catholic Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing activities building located at 17600 Newburgh Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site and landscape plan marked Drawing A-1 dated 7/6/00, as revised, prepared by Harold H. Fisher&Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the landscape plan marked Drawing L-1 dated 7/6/00 prepared by Harold H. Fisher&Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the exterior building elevation plan marked Drawing A-3 dated 7/6/00, as revised, prepared by Harold H. Fisher&Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; `. 6. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties; 7. That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices 8. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated June 21, 2000: - that provisions shall be made to properly screen and locate the existing dumpster on the site - that the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped 9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 11. The petitioner shall install additional evergreen trees in the southeast `... corner of the property in order to shield the adjacent residents, subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 17941 Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? r.. Mr. Alanskas: Could we add to the resolution that a berm be installed on the south side of the creek to block the neighbors'view, or just some plantings of tall pine trees? Mr. McCann: On the east side? She is on the east side. Mr. Taormina: I would just caution in terms of any type of berming without knowing what the grading is on that side, that could present some complications. Mr. Alanskas: Could that come back before us? Mr. Taormina: If you are dealing with landscaping that is one issue but if you are talking about some kind of an earth change, I would caution the Commission that that may present some drainage issues. Mr. Alanskas: I will leave that up to the staff. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a group of evergreen trees, sufficiently located to give her some relief along that area. I don't think you will need a berm. Mr. McCann: To the satisfaction of the staff? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: Something the staff can review and make recommendations before it gets to Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This 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 Commission. ITEM #10 PETITION 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 33326 Seven Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 3. `.. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was 17942 #7-150-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a '`► proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 33326 Seven Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina is there anything new since the last hearing? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We have received a revised plan and some supporting information, which has been submitted by the applicant. Just for the benefit of the residents that are here and for the Commission, we've placed this on an overhead so that it will be easier for them to read. I will allow the petitioner now to go over the changes to the plan. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Dave Hood, 33326 Seven Mile Road, Livonia. Mr. McCann: Mr. Hood, do you want to explain the changes you have made? Mr. Hood: The changes we made since the last drawing was that we have taken these that were 90 degrees and angled them so that there would be one way only into the parking lot. We also accommodated Mrs. Rose, the neighbor, so she can open her car door. We jogged the wall over actually further back than where the existing lot line fence currently exists. Mr. McCann: How far over? Mr. Hood: About two feet. Mr. McCann: Do we have an additional landscape plan? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I believe some detail has been provided on the plan relative to landscaping and they called out the actual species and sizes of the plant material. It is shown on that color overhead. Mr. McCann: It appears to be just the two bushes on each side. Are there other annual plantings? Mr. Taormina: No. There are really just limited plantings within the rights-of-way of Westmore Avenue. You can see that there is a small area available on the northwest corner of the site where an evergreen might be installed. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? ,,� Mr. LaPine: Are you doing any renovation to the outside of the old carpet store at all? 17943 Mr. Hood: We just painted it last year and we put a new mansard roof on it. Mr. LaPine: But what I am talking about, on Seven Mile Road you've got the big glass `r.• windows, they stay. Do the two doors stay? Will people enter to go into the poolroom from Seven Mile or do they have to go through the bar? Mr. Hood: No. We have plans to enter off of Seven Mile. Mr. LaPine: They can come in through the double door on Seven Mile? Mr. Hood: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So you are going to have someone to operate the poolroom basically? Mr. Hood: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So you know how long they stay on the table. I guess they rent them out. It has been so many years since I've been in a poolroom. So if they want drinks then they go through the exit into the bar and get their drinks and come back to the poolroom. Is that what they will do? Mr. Hood: We will have a waitperson or staff to come over and take their orders. Mr. LaPine: As I understand it, we now are going to have two entrances off of Westmore, one which is an existing alley and the one-way off of Westmore. Is that rte„ right? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. This plan does show one way access from Westmore. Mr. LaPine: When they exit, they have to exit out one way and come back out the alley to Farmington Road or down to Seven Mile? Mr. Taormina: They actually have three choices at that point. They can travel westbound on the alley to get to Farmington Road, south to Seven Mile or loop back around through the alley to Westmore. Mr. McCann: As was explained at the last meeting, audience participation is not allowed without unanimous consent from the Planning Commission. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak? Is there unanimous consent from the Planning Commission? If there is no objection, you may speak. Nancy Heath, 19114 Westmore. I am opposed to this plan. I am not opposed to the parking lot. I would like to see, as I brought up at the last meeting where the one way entrance, where the drive is, not the alley way, I would like to see that totally closed off and only have an entrance from the alley way. My house is directly across where that one-way drive is going to be and I understand you can say it is going to be a one-way drive, but when it is midnight or 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. and nobody is out there, that is not going to stop cars from coming out, regardless of whether it says one-way or not. It is a big concern 17944 because it is directly aiming at my house and I would be scared to death that I am going to have somebody through my front window some night. It is just all maybes but I would like to see that totally closed off and I understand that `r•- there is some kind of a problem of getting a right-of-way from the lady that owns the property, off of the alleyway to have an entrance there. The neighbors are going to be writing her a letter ourselves to try and get permission from her. I would just like to see that totally closed off and if it is not closed off and the one-way is passed, I still would like to see a brick wall on each side of that one way, not landscaping because if you have been out there to look at the property, that whole section, any grass or any landscaping is not taken care of. I would really hate to see it there. I don't think it will be taken care of in the future either. Just to plant a tree or a bush here and there, once this house comes down, that is unsightly, those old buildings back there. You've got dumpsters, you've got fuel tanks and it is really going to be unsightly for us to look at on our side of the street Once that house is down, something has to be done. We don't want to look at an alley way and a parking lot. That is basically what it is going to come down to. I understand the need for the parking lot. I wish the businesses around there would go in on it with him because we have other businesses that park on our streets, every day, four or five cars. It makes it hard for us to see getting out of our driveway because we are right off of Seven Mile and as we back up, there might be somebody coming around the corner, which we have a little blind spot there with cars at our driveway. That is all I have to say. I would basically just like to see that section where the one-way is closed off. Like I said, at night, people are not going to pay attention to it regardless of what it `.. says. Thank you. June Rose, 19125 Westmore, Livonia, Lots 89 and 90. My driveway is the one in question. Mr. McCann: We received pictures of your car. Ms. Rose: Also, my concern is about a dumpster for the grease as well as for the garbage. Right now there is not a dumpster at Wintergarden for the grease or the garbage. That is a big concern because there has been a rodent problem in that area, that and the wall. I would like to petition not for a five foot wall, because that is impossible. It would have to be at least a six or seven foot wall, probably I would push for a seven foot wall. My bedroom windows and my kitchen window is on that side of the house. With your SUVs being tall and not low like a car, they could still see in my windows. The lights might not be shining as much with a taller wall. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any last comments sir? Mr. Hood: With regard to the dumpsters, we sent a letter in with the package with the latest print. Mr. McCann: We have a copy of your letter stating that you are complying with the Health 'NowDepartment requirements for storage of your food surplus and the trash. Correct? 17945 Mr. Hood: Yes and also the City Ordinance. `r..► Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. Alanskas: We have gone through this so many times and I think we have come up with the best plan that we can do here. I think what we have done is going to be a big improvement and we just have to give this a chance. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was #7-151-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 33326 Seven Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site and landscape plan Sheet SP-1 and SP-2 dated July 24, 2000, as revised, prepared by Stucky-Vitale Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 16 ft. in height; 3) That a six foot high masonry wall shall be installed along the north property line instead of the five foot wall; 4) The petitioner shall provide sufficient signage off Westmore indicating one-way traffic only and a "Do Not Enter" sign at the west end of the alley. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: Koons ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-05-06-03 Planning Commission (Millennium Park Control Zones) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-06-03 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#164-98, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to amend Section 18.47 Special Area Development control to include the area surrounding Millennium Park in a new control zone in portions of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26. 17946 On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was �.• #7-152-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution# 164-98, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47 Special Area Development control to include the area surrounding Millennium Park in a new control zone in portions of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Koons, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #12 PETITION 2000-05-06-04 City Planning Commission (Enclosed Parking) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-06-04 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#351-00, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to amend Section 27.10 and Section 27.09A, enclosed parking standards in the R-8 and R-9C Zoning Districts. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #7-153-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#351-00, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of the Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 27.10 and Section 27.09A, enclosed parking standards in the R-8 and R-8C Zoning Districts FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council 17947 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Koons, LaPine, Piercecchi, McCann �.. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of the 807th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 13, 2000. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #7-154-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 807th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Minutes of the 383rd Special Meeting held on July 11, 2000. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #7-155-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 383`d Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 11, 2000, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Koons, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 17948 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 809th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 25, 2000 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: C J.4 es C. Mc , Chairman /rw