Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-08-14 11219 MINUTES OF THE 606th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 410. On Tuesday, August 14, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 606th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-1-15 by Alan Gottlieb & David Bittker for Canterbury Park Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Osmus and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-9 to R-7. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. However, the development of a drive approach to Seven Mile Road may necessitate the widening of Seven Mile Road (both north and south sides) to accommodate right-turn movements in the proposed R-7 area. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down to the podium and give us your name and address for the record and tell us what you have in mind. Michael Downes, Architect for Southwood Construction Company, which is Alan Gottlieb and David Bittker and I am the architect for this particular site. Basically I think everything Mr. Bakewell said 11220 was correct with one exception. The area to the west of the R3A the peak there is commercial and not residential. At the present time this piece of property is zoned R-9. We would like to rezone it R-7 as part of the R-7 to the north, which is Canterbury Park Apartments. At the present time Mr. Bittker and Mr. Gottlieb own ` the CanterburyPark Apartments and want to extend that p particular phase of it to make this Phase 3 of Canterbury Park Apartments. We feel that the R-9 zoning may have been appropriate at the time that it was rezoned to R-9 but at the present time we feel it would be a better zoning to make it R-7. In that case we can contain it within the same mortgage commitment basically of the R-7 to the north and continue the driveway through and all the way back. (Mr. Downes pointed this out on map) We have discussed this with the Engineering Department and the Planning Department and they have agreed on that as far as that particular concept is concerned. We feel that at the present time the R-9 classification would allow us to build 64 elderly housing units and at one time, several years ago, this was proposed by the original owner. With the R-7 classification, as we have proposed it in conjunction with the density we have on the Canterbury Park Apartments now, we would reduce that 64 down to 48, which I think is a plus for the general area. The areas to the east and west of this particular site, it is my understanding may be coming up for a rezoning to other classifications. The RUF you see to the east, a lot of that contains the creek and part of the flood plain, which is part of the PL zoning, so a lot of the RUFB cannot really be built, only a small portion can be built. I think at this point I would say if there are any questions, I can answer the questions. New Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Downes, does your owner own any of the RUFB? Mr. Downes: No. Mrs. Fandrei: Other than the mortgage commitment, why would R-7 be more appropriate? Mr. Downes: For one thing it would reduce the density in the area, which I think is a plus. The other point is at the present time, it is difficult to say this because I know this body is not under the compulsion to rezone because of economic conditions but the R-7 is in conjunction with the Canterbury Park Apartments, which are already there, and it would be much easier to obtain a mortgage than the R-9 by itself. The mortgage companies now are being very, very picky as far as what they are going to mortgage at this point because of the S & L scandal. They are all worried about that kind of thing. The R-9 with the restriction of 55 and older, it is going to be difficult to obtain a mortgage and build a project as far as R-9 is concerned. We believe there is sufficient senior citizens' housing in Livonia. As a matter of fact in the R-7 that we have right now, Canterbury Park Apartments, which is approximately 200 units, approximately 25% of those units are already leased to senior citizens because our rentals are such that they can afford it and out of all those there is only one that has applied for and received subsidence from the City. Because the ..� rental is low enough because of the amount of units, we feel that even if we change to R-7, we can still rent to senior citizens as 11221 opposed to restricting us to 55 and older only. It would be a much more integrated community. It would allow affordable housing in that area which not only the senior citizens but even the young marrieds can get into. "'w Mrs. Fandrei: The studies we have done by our department relative to senior housing is that we have a desperate shortage of senior housing in this community. Our waiting list won't be filled for years because we have such a shortage and one of the concerns of this board is that we have sufficient apartments. We have just gone on record as denying apartment complexes in other parts of the City and again, we are looking for the R-9. We are looking for the senior housing. I am concerned that you are taking away the zoning that we need badly in this community and, as our whole country is experiencing the longevity of all of our citizens. We are all living longer. We are going to have more need for the R-9. As one Commissioner, I feel very strongly that we need to retain this R-9. Mr. Downes: The only way I can answer that statement is by saying we obviously can rent to senior citizens. This is going to be a mortgage rate project and not a subsidized project either by Michigan State Housing or by HUD. We feel we have the latitude with R-7 to rent to senior citizens and we feel we have already done so in the Canterbury Park Apartments right now. Mrs. Fandrei: Knowing the conditions of the S & L, I am a realtor with 16 years in this area, I would feel your owners would have a better chance of getting a mortgage if it were senior housing rather than apartments. r.. Mr. Downes: Our particular lenders have not looked at it in that way because instead of approaching it as Phase 3 of Canterbury Park, this is a separate project all by itself and that becomes very difficult to mortgage as opposed to Phase 3 of a 250 unit project of Canterbury Park, which becomes a much easier thing to mortgage. Mr. Tent: Mr. Downes, I agree with my fellow Commissioner and I am not going to go into that recitation again. There is only one thing I would like to add to it. The R-9 that we have here is an ideal location for a senior citizens development and there aren't many places in the City where we could put in a senior citizens development because they don't have the shopping, they don't have the convenience of transportation, etc. so I too as a Commissioner feel to give up this R-9, where it is in an area where people could get around to shop, etc. , I would prefer to have you pursue the R-9 development and I think we could make this a good situation. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Downes, does your client own the R-3 property? Mr. Downes: No he does not. Mr. LaPine: Do you know who owns that property? Mr. Downes: No I do not. ..u. Mr. LaPine: It would seem logical to me if you were to go from R-9 to R-7, we 11222 should combine the two parcels instead of having an R-7 with an R3A next to it. It seems to me the logical thing to do here is whoever is going to develop that property, to develop both parcels to the same thing. At this point I favor keeping it R-9 because we need R-9 zoning in this town. What is the rentals for your units? ... Mr. Downes: The plans we have proposed are for 48 two-bedrooms units and right now the Canterbury Park Apartments two-bedroom units are renting for $620. Mr. LaPine: Do you think that is a reasonable price for senior citizens on a fixed income? Would that be a range you feel they would be in? Mr. Downes: All I can say is 25% of the units that we have leased at Canterbury Park already have 55 and over in them. Mr. LaPine: When you talk 55 and over, most of us are not retired at 55. I am talking people 65 and older. Mr. Downes: It is hard for me to answer that question. Mr. LaPine: You do not own the R-3 property? Mr. Downes: I would agree with you that the R-3A is going to be changed to something else whether it becomes R-7, R-9 or a continuation of the C-1, which are the only logical choices. I would assume that the R-3A will eventually be changed to something else. That is a nice piece of property. Mr. LaPine: Has your client tried to purchase the R-3 parcel? Mr. Downes: No they have not. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Downes is Canterbury Park completely built now? Mr. Downes: They have just opened the last 100 units. That was the second phase. They are not completely rented yet but they are going along very nicely. Mr. Morrow: What would you say would be your occupancy rate? Mr. Downes: This is Mr. David Bittker, one of the owners. He can answer that. David Bittker, 3590 Wards Point, Orchard Lake: I am managing partner with Mr. Gottlieb of this project. To answer your question, as of today of 200 units, we have rented 185 units. Mr. Downes indicated that 25% of our renters are seniors. I don't have an exact count but I think that is a fairly accurate statement. I would like to make one point with regard to the adjacent parcel, the R-3A. We have not approached nor have they approached us with regard to any purchase or sale of that adjacent parcel. Our original intent in what we have built in R-7, that we would eventually construct approximately 250 units which would give us an economy of scale that is one that enables us to rent at what today are market rates. I must say that if you check the availability of apartments in northern Livonia, you will see we are considerably below the other projects. We operate other projects. We operate other adjacent 11223 projects that we are really competitors of ourselves. We own Merriman Woods at the corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman, which competes with this and we likewise are at very similar rates. We find in today's marketplace that $620 to $640 is, with all the amenities we give people, really below the market rates. We are not in the $700 to $800 range, which then I would say without question are out of reach for seniors. We find the majority of seniors that come to rent from our two projects are able to afford that rent without a problem. Obviously we don't see everybody but we know that others have moved to this project from other adjacent projects since we built it because it is brand new, because we think we have done a superb job and we would like to finish the project with the same density. We think the seniors will be able to afford it and that is why we are requesting the R-7. The R-9 restriction at 55 has resulted in, as Mr. Downes said, very great difficulty in getting mortgage financing from present lenders. The last point is that without subsidies, without government either direct payment or direct mortgage subsidies, the senior concept is great in idea but it is not viable in the economic climate that we are experiencing today. To hold property for the future is not our method of operation. We would like to build it, operate it and put the tax base on line and we are happy to pay the taxes at that rate. Sandy Vartoogian, 18569 Blue Skies Ct. : I didn't come here for this petition but my mother is on the list and there is definitely a need for senior citizens housing and I am glad to hear you realize that. Mr. Engebretson: We are in complete agreement. 'trr Robert Candlish, 32415 Seven Mile: (Mr. Candlish pointed out his property on map) This property has been in our name for 45 years. Let me refresh your memory here. The R-3 property is single family. Everybody that lives in the house must be related. You can't rent a room. This R-9, there are a couple of things. Do they have to file an Environmental Impact Statement? This is a wildlife refuge. How many trees are bigger than 10 inches in diameter? You are going to widen Seven Mile Road. From the library to my house there are sixty trees on both sides of Seven Mile that are greater than 10 inches in diameter. Mr. Nagy: There is no zoning requirement that says they must file an Environmental Impact Statement. With respect to widening Seven Mile, they have already dedicated the necessary right-of-way pursuant to the Wayne County Road Commission thoroughfare plan for Seven Mile Road. It is under the County jurisdiction. We have 60 feet north of the center line so the pavement widening can occur within that area. We will need additional right-of-way on the south side by your property, however, and with respect to the requirement of trees and all those kinds of things, the Commission deals with that when the site plan is submitted. We make every effort to protect existing trees that are outside of the actual building area. Mr. Candlish: Do they appreciate what they are doing? It was discussed that the R-3A and the R-9 should be discussed together. They are not owned together. That I learned tonight. I thought they were. The way 11224 this has gone on you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what happens. First the R-9 property was residential. It was changed to senior citizen residential. We are all going to be seniors so great. That was the first bite. Now it is proposed R-7. The R-3A it has been, within the last six to nine months, commercial, medical, etc. I am for proposed progress but within a one mile radius of this R-7 development there isn't an apartment complex around that doesn't have a vacancy sign out in front. If we need it, great but there doesn't seem to be a dying need for it. Bear in mind it was R-3 and what have we given up. Russ Rheaume, 32405 Seven Mile: I live right next to Bob. I have been here for three years. I have been noticing each piece gradually being given up. There are a lot of beautiful trees across the way there like Bob was talking about. I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the plans the company had for that particular piece. I am wondering how they would put their apartments in there. Would you have them just on one side? Where would the road be? Mr. Engebretson: Sir, that comes with site plan approval. This is strictly a zoning matter tonight. Mr. Rheaume: I was just curious about that. What I am worried about myself. I am pro green. I like the trees and naturally each time they take a little piece we are always here to talk about it. I am for the R-9 because of the senior citizens. I think it would be a nice spot. I am very concerned about the traffic in the area. There is no traffic light as of right now between Farmington and Merriman. I am not sure where the road would be but I do feel more should be �., taken into what they are going to be doing with this piece of property before you would consider granting a change in the zoning. Mr. Downes: I would like to summarize before the Commission has their final deliberation. Two major points. I understand the need for senior citizens housing but I also understand Livonia has a need for affordable housing and multi-family such as Canterbury Park also gives the affordable housing to senior citizens as well as young marrieds and even older marrieds. The second point is the other thing which Council has mentioned in previous discussions with me is the fact that density is a very important thing especially on Seven Mile Road, which is a major road and which at the present time, at least on the south side, is heavily residential from this point all the way back to Merriman and density in this particular case, if we talk about R-7 as opposed to R-9, would be reduced from 64 down to 48. That is an important factor also. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Downes, I don't want to quibble with you but just for the record since you mentioned several times that the R-9 zoning would result in density of 64 units, that is the maximum. It doesn't necessarily mean there would be 64. You are well aware of that. Someone could come in and only put in 48 units for senior housing. I don't think we should focus too heavily on that particular point. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-1-15 closed. r 11225 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #8-415-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Petition 90-7-1-15 by Alan Gottlieb & David Bittker for Canterbury Park Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Osmus and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-9 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-7-1-15 until the study meeting of August 21, 1990. 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-1-16 by Philip Barth requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Curtis, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1 to OS. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service this site. It may be necessary to extend a storm sewer northerly to Pickford Avenue to the existing Livonia Drain #20 444.- storm sewer system. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Phillip Barth, 23981 Jamestown, Farmington: The reason I want to use this property, I have owned it for 20 years and I have been before this board once before and was turned down by the Council and since then the property immediately to the south has been built and now I am next door to a medical facility. I feel at this point in time there is a reasonable demand for office space, particularly medical and I bought the property initially to use it and it is either 19 or 20 years I have owned the property so it is not an idea I have just came by. Mr. Tent: You have owned that property for 19 years? Mr. Barth: Nineteen or 20 years. Mr. Tent: Are you going to oversee the property or are you selling it to another developer? Mr. Barth: I own several other properties in the City of Livonia. I very much intend to develop this myself. Mr. Tent: Which properties have you developed in the City of Livonia? 11226 Mr. Barth: You are probably all familiar with the donut shop, Looney Baker, and I have an interest in some property located on Newburgh and Schoolcraft, which is a large 12,000 foot office building. I also have an industrial building on Schoolcraft at 23981 Schoolcraft. Arsow Mr. Tent: On this proposal is this a speculative type zoning or do you have a client who has spoken for the property? Mr. Barth: I have talked to a couple of doctors but I don't have anything in writing. I have some people who have expressed an interest in the property. Mr. Tent: How strong is that interest? Mr. Barth: I really don't want to start construction until I have a pretty firm commitment. If I do start construction, I would only rough the facility in until I had a firm commitment. Mr. Tent: If you were granted the zoning, do you have any intention of selling the property and letting someone else develop it? Mr. Barth: I am planning on this for my retirement. I want to use this income for my own benefits. Mr. McCann: You are talking about putting in a building. Do you have any idea the square footage of the building you would be putting in? Mr. Barth: At the present time I am thinking of somewhere between 3500 and 4000 square feet. rr. Mr. McCann: Single story? Mr. Barth: Yes. Mr. McCann: Any particular pattern design? Mr. Barth: Not exactly. The building next door has a hip roof. I would probably use a hip roof type construction. Mr. McCann: One of the problems you will see there, I see with the property anyway, I live in the area, is from the sidewalk it drops down around five feet. Would you be bringing the level of the building up to the street level or would you be building down below? That is a major problem. Mr. Barth: That is a major problem with that property and I am going to leave that up to the architect and also up to the City Building Department. Mr. McCann: Have you also thought how that would affect the neighbors behind you if you raised the property up? I am not sure where the water flows. Is it to the neighbors yard or is it to your yard? Mr. Barth: There is a storm drain in one of the lots I own and it has a metal drain over it and the storm drainage runs right into that. I have no problem with drainage. mw 11227 Mr. Kluver: Mr. Barth, presently in the area there are approximately 14 office buildings and you indicated that you have some interest in the event you could construct your project that it would be leasable and I guess I question some of the economics that might be involved. Currently we appear to be in a soft market and presently ��. there are 3 of these 14 buildings that are 90% plus vacant and I am just curious to see if you have some additional formula that would make your project more viable since obviously if you were granted this construction costs would probably be increased over the current vacant buildings? Mr. Barth: Each individual building has to stand on its own feet and I have quite reasonable land costs here. I think I could be quite competitive on the construction. That is something I have like an ace in the hole, I guess. Mr. LaPine: The lot directly north of your property and next to the doctor's office, is that a vacant lot? I believe it is Lot 99. Mr. Barth: The lot next door to the north would be a residential building that faces Pickford. Mr. LaPine: The lot directly behind it. Mr. Barth: That lot goes with the building facing Pickford. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding you are going to build a building around 3500 square foot? Mr. Barth: 3500 sq. ft. to 4000 sq. ft. Mt. LaPine: You know you have your 25 foot setbacks, you have a setback from the back? Mr. Barth: I am familiar with this. Mr. LaPine: You understand you have to put a masonry wall behind there? Mr. Barth: I understand. Mr. LaPine: You understand from the letter we got from the Engineering Department you may have to go up Farmington Road to hook into the sewer at Pickford? Mr. Barth: That is possible but as I mentioned before there is a sewer that crosses Farmington Road, I think on Lot 98. I think I can use that sewer but I haven't discussed it with the Engineering Department. Mr. LaPine: You realize that if that is necessary, you will be required to do that? Mr. Barth: Absolutely. Mr. Engebretson: I guess I am curious, Mr. Nagy, regarding the Engineering Department's report. When I went to inspect the site it was my a. impression that there is a considerable drop from the residential buildings to the rear, quite a number of feet as it drops down to 11228 this property line and then it drops way off. I am concerned about a couple of things. One, the water run off and secondly, it would appear to me if they bring that grade up to Farmington Road even a one story building is going to tower over those homes in the back. I am wondering would they have looked into that? Mr. Nagy: I think other than the straightforward engineering solutions, that is to collect the water, serve it with sanitary sewers, bring water to the site, that probably is the extent of the Engineering's investigation. I don't think they look at heights of buildings, etc. Mr. Engebretson: It is probably more of an aesthetic type of issue. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, Mr. Barth indicated a 3500 to 4000 square foot potential building of that type. Given the depth of the lots in that particular area, would this be a viable thing? Would there be some sort of subject to Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a building of this size as far as yards would be concerned? Mr. Nagy: I think the expectation of putting in a 3500 square foot building is realistic. I think they can meet the setback requirements just as well as the office building to the south has. The building to the south went in without variance in terms of yards and I think similarly this site can be developed without any variances. Roy Novara, 18399 Westmore: We do have a concern about that. You expressed it beautifully. What about runoff? What about a building that is going to tower. This is a good sizable drop. I did understand this was a zoning issue and it wasn't a site approval but that was a major concern and I do want that really looked into. I don't know if you can tap into a sewer. If one storm drain is going to be sufficient. My back yard is directly behind this. I don't want to be flooded out. This is a very big concern but I don't know what else can be done with the property at this point. That is our biggest concern. Mr. McCann: Mr. Novara, does your water drain into his yard? Mr. Novara: Just a little bit and there is a ditch that runs through the property and I believe there was a stream that ran through. Mr. McCann: The house at the end on Pickford, Lot 102, is the elevation higher there? Does the property rise in elevation toward Pickford? Mr. Novara: He is even with Pickford and then it gradually slopes down. I can't imagine how you are going to get a car in there. Mr. McCann: That is the problem I have. Mr. Novara: That is a sizable drop. Mr. Morrow: I would think that for the petitioner to develop that property to office capacity would probably require the same astute engineering feat for residential uses as well as for the petitioner's office use. That office use property has to be addressed very carefully regardless of how it is developed. 11229 Mr. Gniewek: In my opinion, although I am not too sure there would be too many people looking to develop residential along that particular stretch of property and the Master Plan of the City of Livonia indicates this to be office services or professional services as a future use, I would think we would probably have a good deal of control „W.,, with site plan and I would think the office service would be more compatible and would also provide a buffer between Farmington Road and the residential even better than the residential would. Mr. Engebretson: Perhaps the point you make is that we can protect the interest of the neighbors relative to the runoff they expressed and those kinds of things. We can certainly control that at site plan approval time if this is successful and if it isn't, if they develop it residential, the Planning Commission would have no control. Mr. McCann: I agree with Conrad, maybe in this situation with site plan, but I hate to give up the idea because it is on a main road that we can't have residential go in there. I think it is a possibility but I am not saying in this instance it is appropriate. Mr. Tent: I move we table the petition for further discussion particularly with respect to petitioner's plans for developing the subject land and rezoning. I would like to table this until September 11. Mr. McCann: Could we get a report from the Engineering Department on the viability of construction with regard to the elevation and drainage. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #8-416-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Petition 90-7-1-16 by Philip Barth requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Curtis, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1 to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-7-1-16 to the Study Meeting of September 11, 1990. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vhylanek ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-2-22 by Automate Auto Rental requesting waiver use approval to operate an automobile rental facility in the Plymouth Square Shopping center located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. 11230 Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating this proposal presents no unusual traffic problems, provided the transfer of cars from the storage area to the office and vice-versa is done in a safe manner. If additional security lighting is installed, it must be done in a manner that will not interfere with the privacy of residents either to the south or across Merriman Road. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they are opposed to this development. The storage of approximately 10, unprotected, vehicles located in the southwest parking lot of the shopping center will present a tremendous temptation for juveniles. This unprotected location could and would pose a great threat of vandalism and could become the possible target for the act of arson. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Provided that the vehicles are stored more than 20' from any lot line adjoining a street, their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Don Coward, 3244 Goodrich, Ferndale: What we are proposing here is for an insurance replacement rental. We rent cars to people whose cars have been involved in an accident and are going into the shop for service. We deliver cars so at any one time we won't have a lot of ,,or cars on the lot because we take them out and deliver them. We have a truck and dolly system where we tow the car right on the dolly and deliver the car to the body shop, home, wherever. When people return the cars a lot of times they return the cars where we deliver them so we pick them up from there. So at any given time there may be three to five cars on the lot during the weekdays. Sometimes there are not any. During the weekends there might be a few more. There might be six to ten depending on how many you get back on the weekend but we can gauge it and if we see we are getting too many back, we can have them dropped at the body shop where we do business and they have no problem with that. Mrs. Fandrei: Which body shop do you do business with? Mr. Coward: We do business with a lot of body shops. Mrs. Fandrei: No particular one? Mr. Coward: No. Mrs. Fandrei: What areas? Mr. Coward: We have Southfield, Livonia, Redford. We deliver in about a 30 mile radius from the office. Mr. Gniewek: Where do you have your present facilities? 11231 Mr. Coward: We have 21 offices throughout the Detroit area. We are a division of Agency Rent A Car. Presently we are located in Southfield on Eight Mile Road near Inkster. Mr. Gniewek: Do you have any Livonia locations presently? 0.441. Mr. Coward: No we do not. Mr. Gniewek: You spoke of a vehicle that moves the cars from one place to another . How often does that come to this particular lot to move these vehicles? Is it in the area a lot during the day? Mr. Coward: It is in and out. It is what we deliver the cars with. It is usually on the road delivering the cars most of the time. Mr. Gniewek: I notice the area you are looking to store these cars in is quite a distance from the main building. What manner are you planning of having for protection of these vehicles? How do you oversee these vehicles with them being so far away from the building? Do you have some sort of security system or someone who is going to be watching these so they can't be vandalized. Mr. Coward: No we do not. We do have 21 offices throughout the Detroit area and we do not have a problem with vandalism. None of the offices are protected. Mr. Gniewek: But are the vehicles parked as far away from the office center as this one seems to be? Mr. Coward: Yes most of the time because we realize we take up a lot of space. Mr. Gniewek: Vandalism is not a problem as far as you are concerned? Mr. Coward: No it is not. Mr. Vyhnalek: We have 14 places just like yours within a two mile radius counting the dealerships and the Tuffy Muffler and it is sort of hard to believe there is that much business but ten automobiles, is that what most of your business is? Mr. Coward: The way our business is set up we rent every car every day so there are not a whole lot left on the lot at night. Mr. Vyhnalek: But your main office is going to be in the shopping center? Mr. Coward: Correct. Mr. Vyhnalek: Where is that truck going to be? If you only have 10 units, that truck is not going to be out all the time, where is that truck going to sit with the dolly? Mr. Coward: That truck would be part of the 10 units. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is going to be sitting out there? Mr. Coward: Correct. 11232 Mr. Kluver: These vehicles will obviously require maintenance and service. Where will they be serviced? Mr. Coward: We have national accounts like K Mart or dealerships. None are serviced on the lot. Mr. LaPine: I would like to get more into this 10 vehicles. It is hard for me to believe that you can operate and make a profit with just 10 vehicles. Are you telling me if 7 units are rented out for 3 days each, do you get 7 more units from some other location so in reality you have 20 units there, 7 are out and 3 are on the lot and you go pick up 7 more. Mr. Coward: What we are saying is we won't have more than 10 units at one time on the lot. Mr. LaPine: When they are returned, are they returned to this location? Say you have 10 cars on your location right now, what happens to that car? Mr. Coward: We would leave it at the dealership or if we felt this office is getting too many cars back, we have 21 offices and we would send them to another office that might need the cars. Mr. Tent: You never gave an answer directly as far as the total number of cars. Are you going to have 10 as the maximum? Mr. Coward: Ten as the maximum number on the lot at one time. 'NNW Mr. Tent: You won't have 15 or 20 from other locations if you do have a need for additional vehicles? Mr. Coward: That is not to say we won't have more cars in the fleet at the time. Mr. Tent: At that location there you could theoretically have 20 cars? Mr. Coward: Correct. Mr. Tent: When they drop off these cars they won't necessarily drop them off at a far distant location, they are going to drop them off in the shopping center. Now there is a parking lot there that is for the customers. When these cars are dropped off, how are you going to protect them from being dropped off at the shopping center and depriving the shopping center of their rightful parking spaces? Mr. Coward: As soon as they are dropped off, obviously the customer will come in and give us the keys and from that point we will move the cars. Mr. Tent: You already have 10 cars and you have another 15 coming in because you have that much demand. Where are those 15 cars going to be parked? Mr. Coward: What we do, we would call another office and we would transfer them ,,,, to a different office. 11233 Mr. Tent: So at some time we could have our shopping center lot there housing your rental cars? Mr. Coward: We do have scheduled times when the people will drop off. If we realize we are getting too many back, we will get them out of there before that happens. Mr. Tent: I see that as a problem and that is one of my concerns. I can see this ballooning into a bigger operation. Mrs. Fandrei: I am having a problem with the idea of a truck being stored in this area. The truck would be a wrecker right? Mr. Coward: No. It is a pickup truck with a dolly on the back. Mrs. Fandrei: Would the dolly always remain with the truck during the evening when it is not being used? Mr. Coward: Yes it does. Mrs. Fandrei: So that would be taking up two parking spaces, one behind the other. That would not fit here. There is no place in this layout for that pickup truck with a dolly. Mr. Coward: That could fit on the far corner. Mrs. Fandrei: But you would be taking up spaces that were designed for other cars. Mr. Coward: At one time we would not have more than 10 cars with the truck and dolly on the lot. Mrs. Fandrei: It doesn't look like it is going to fit. Your limit of 10 spaces is going to be expanded. It looks like it is going to take more than 10. Mr. Coward: As I said we gauge that and if we are getting too many back, we can have them left at the body shop instead of bringing them back to the office. Mrs. Fandrei: I am concerned about parking this truck with the dolly attached. It looks like it is taking up two spaces that was meant for cars. I think we all have a concern about some of these parking spots. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on that. Do I understand that the pickup truck has a dolly attached permanently and it takes a longer than normal parking space. Mr. Coward: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: These are twenty foot parking bays back there. You would have to find an entirely different area to park it. You would be sticking out into the right-of-way. There is just no room. Mr. Coward: The dolly can be unhooked. 11234 Mr. Engebretson: So now you are down to eight. Mr. Coward: Right. Mr. Morrow: You say you have 21 locations throughout the metro area. What is the closest one to this particular site? Mr. Coward: Being kind of new to this area I would say the Plymouth location or Dearborn or Westland. Mr. Morrow: How many of these sites are in a commercial area such as this? Mr. Coward: Most of them are. Mr. Morrow: I think you indicated earlier that a lot of your clients were done through collision or insurance companies. With this type of service that you provide and the type of units you must have stored around the City, what causes you to feel you have to be in a commercial site to carry out business? It would seem like with the service you provide it would be economically feasible to work out of more of a hub and move these vehicles with your dollies where needed instead of a walk in type of clientele. You have heard the concerns of my fellow Commissioners as to storage versus actual office. That is where I am coming from. I don't know if you can respond to it but this is what is on my mind. Mr. Coward: We like to have a central location where there is going to be a good base for business and then we can draw from dealerships and body shops as well as have an attractive location if we do have a customer walk in. They could come to the office and it would be appealing to them. The majority of our rentals are done where we do deliver the car. Mr. Morrow: I guess that is the point I am running through my mind that because of the service you provide, I suppose if I ever got in that position I would like to do business with you, I just have some concerns about your operation. What it might develop into. It just sounds like it might go into something larger than what we are looking at here tonight and it might be difficult to control. Mr. McCann: I have used these cars before when I have had cars stolen and I think it is the idea that it is a set rate per day and is usually much cheaper than your normal car agency but it is my understanding that most customers pick up their car or it is delivered to their home. I had them picked up at my home. I had them delivered to my home. I have dropped it off at the dealership when I picked up my car. Are most of your pick up and deliveries done that way? Mr. Coward: Most of it is. We do have people that walk into the office. Mr. McCann: What percentage? Mr. Coward: I would say about 25% at the most. Mr. McCann: Most of it is if you go out and pick up a truck and you have no room left, you can have it dropped off at another location? 11235 Mr. Coward: Correct. Mr. McCann: That location is in Plymouth, Westland, Dearborn? Mr. Coward: Correct. Mr. McCann: So you have a number of locations around. What is the average number of cars you usually keep on the lot overnight? Mr. Coward: The average is between 3 and 5 and if we have more than 8 cars, we can take the cars someplace else. Mr. McCann: Is this a full size pickup truck? Mr. Coward: It is a Dodge Dakota. It is classified as mid size. Mr. McCann: It is not a full size trailer. It is just two wheels and about five feet long? Mr. Coward: Correct. Mr. Vyhnalek: You deal mostly with the insurance companies? You probably have a lower rate than the Ford Rent A Car or Chevrolet or Avis? Mr. Coward: Yes we do. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have a contract with these companies? Mr. Coward: No we do not. Nu. Mr. Vyhnalek: What kind of vehicles to you rent? Mr. Coward: Ford, GM and Chrysler. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am still concerned about them sitting out there in the open on Merriman Road. That is the entrance to the shopping center isn't it? Mr. Nagy: It is a secondary entrance. The main entrance is from Plymouth Road. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is heavily trafficked Mr. Nagy, isn't it? Mr. Nagy: It can be used as a main artery to the shopping center. Mr. Engebretson: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Coward: 8:00 to 5:30 Monday through Thursday. 8:00 to 6:00 on Friday and 9:00 to noon on Saturday. Mr. Engebretson: How many employees to you have at a location like this? Mr. Coward: Two employees. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is this a C-1 zoned district or C-2? Mr. Nagy: It is C-2. 11236 Mr. Vyhnalek: Are these going to be special marked spaces? Mr. Coward: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: So during the Christmas and holiday rush, people won't park in `""" these? Mr. Coward: Correct. Ron Parz, 31153 Plymouth Road: I am Property Manager of Plymouth Square. I would say this to you, after the points of contention we have had over the years with the Planning Commission, you have done me an excellent favor here by further uncovering things I didn't know. If I am going to burn you down, I am going to burn you down because I don't need tenants like this. They came into my office in June of this year and said they were going to run a parking agency here. They showed me a nice brochure and I checked them out. They are a national company so they are well financed. They sure looked good. They have money in the bank. They do a nice job. The fellow presents himself as clean cut and articulate in his discussions. He asked to have 10 cars located on Plymouth Square so that he could have a Livonia location. The point in question is that I located him there. I have an abundance of parking in Plymouth Square. I have 32 cars more than was required by zoning for this center. This location is rarely used. The neighbors park there and also the 7-Eleven uses that for parking. I thought this would be a good space to enhance the shopping center. When they came in they said they would have a maximum of 10 cars parked here at any one time. I located them there because I didn't want them further into my shopping center because I want to count the number of cars coming in and I want to count the number of cars going out because pretty soon there is a mix and match and all the headaches that come with mixing and matching. Pretty soon I have a used car lot out here. One of the things I didn't know, was that we are going to have a truck parked on the site. I don't run that type of shopping center. You people know that. You know I maintain them. I do put out some quality stuff so that is why I located them here. I will tell you this, if you approve this and that will be entirely up to you, in the lease there will not be truck parking available there. That truck will get off the site and there will be no more than 10 cars. I don't need the headaches. My office, unlike most of the offices in Livonia, is 95% occupied at this particular time and it will be close to 100% occupied and that is why we went ahead with it. By your questioning I found more than I anticipated, more particularly with the truck. I didn't expect that. As for the parking, vandalism can occur at any particular time. The building is a mixed building. Down to the south of the building we have Downriver Refrigeration that has been in there for the last 12 to 15 years and they do have a car and a truck that is parked outside for their delivery purposes and Washington Inventory is there. They conduct inventory services throughout the metropolitan area. They have two trucks on the site and they haven't experienced any damage to their trucks but again I am not 11237 looking for a shopping center that has a drop off for 20 cars and we are going to move them around and we have a truck parked outside. If we can control it, this is fine. If we can't, I don't want them as a tenant. If they can offer those assurances, I would press forth with the request. Mr. Coward: We would need the truck. That is our transportation. We would need that on our lot. Daniel Tilney, 4600 Firestone, Dearborn: I am the Assistant District Manager for Automate Auto Rental. Regarding the issue of the pickup truck. It is a 1/2 ton pickup truck. It is a normal 1/2 ton pickup truck with a little trailer on the back. It is not a big cargo van or bus where we actually drive the car on top of the truck. I am very surprised that it has become an issue here tonight due to the nature of the parking center. Any one of the citizens of the City of Livonia, I am sure, would drive their pickup truck to the shopping center and do their shopping there. We have a brand new vehicle that we have the dolly on. We keep the dolly locked. We keep the trucks locked and we do not buy any extras on the vehicles. They are plain Jane cars. They don't have power windows or cassette decks or anything like that. We have been in Southfield and we have been in all the different cities in the Detroit area. We actually have offices in Hamtramck and downtown Detroit. We are an international company. We appreciate your concern for the vandalism. We have a great concern for that as well. However, because of the way we park the cars, we park them altogether as opposed to the cars being scattered all around the parking lot. You won't have to worry +ir about that. We inspect every car. When the customer returns a car, we go out there with the customer and personally inspect the vehicle and then we make sure the car is put in its appropriate spot. We are here to service your community and we believe that we can be very tremendous asset to your community. If you ever need a car, we are here for you. We have over 42,000 cars in the United States and Canada and we are licensed. It would be a definite contribution to your community. In terms of the truck and landlord, I didn't realize that was going to be a problem. I hope we can work that out. It is not a big truck. It is clean. It has our decals on it. We buy the vehicles brand new. Like I said, they won't be a problem. I can almost guarantee it just because of how many cars we have in the Detroit metopolitan area. We have close to 3,000 cars here and we have been doing it for over 20 years and people just keep renting our cars because we do such a good job. We would appreciate being in your community. In terms of the 14 other offices that are in the area, most car dealerships have cars to rent out to their customers, however, a lot of the dealerships, not all of them, their prices are higher than ours. That is what creates our demand. We can make it so easy for the people in the community to rent a car from us. That is why we believe we could do your community a great service. 11238 Mr. Engebretson: In case this should not be approved, please don't interpret that as an indication that you wouldn't be welcome in the community. The issue is whether or not this is the right location for it. What is your exact corporate relationship to the petitioner here? I believe you gave a different name. Mr. Tilney: Automate Auto Rental is a division of Agency Rent A Car Systems. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-2-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #8-417-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-7-2-22 by Automate Auto Rental requesting waiver use approval to operate an automobile rental facility in the Plymouth Square Shopping Center located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-7-2-22 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance ##543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(g)(2) which states that "No vehicles shall be parked within twenty (20) feet from the front lot line or the side lot line adjacent to a street". ter. 3) That the proposed use would be detrimental and disruptive to the normal function of the subject off-street parking lot within which it is proposed to be located. 4) That the proposed use is not a normal facility to be found in a small retail shopping center with limited area available for such use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: McCann, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Gniewek: I would like to reiterate Mr. Engebretson's comment about the fact that just because it has been denied, Livonia does not say that we do not want you here in Livonia. We just think that this ... particular site is the wrong site for your operation. 11239 Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-2-23 by Robert Levin on behalf of Mid 7 Land Company requesting waiver use approval to operate a cafeteria-style full service restaurant (Sveden House) on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road ,., west of Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Bakewell, can you identify specifically which former shops this is going to occupy? Mr. Bakewell: Basically, it was the old Ben & George's and there is a Mr. Bulky that occupies maybe 3 of the 20 units. Further to the north of Mr. Bulky there is a vacant store and a jeweler and then Waterbed Gallery. I would have to say this would probably displace Mr. Bulky. The rest of the units are vacant. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following comments are submitted for consideration: 1. The first drive east of Middlebelt (it runs in front of the shopping center) is posted "No Left Turn" for exiting cars. A sign directing vehicles to the alley should be posted. 2. The parking spaces shown are only 8 to 9 feet wide. It would be better to allow fewer spaces at a 10 foot width than the narrow cramped spaces shown. Narrow spaces result in damage to adjacent parked cars from doors being swung open, backing and entry accidents from cramped entry angles, and cars 'fir parking over the lane lines and effectively eliminating a parking space. They further state the nature of a restaurant means there is a relatively high turnover of cars. Therefore it is important to provide convenient parking spaces for the customers. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: Deficient number of parking spaces and deficient space size. There are 358 spaces required and by manual count, there are only 337; deficient 21 spaces. As measured in the field, the existing spaces are nearly all non-conforming as they vary from 13' to 20' in length and 8 1/2' to 10' in width. This proposal would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the aforementioned deficiencies. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, was there some investigation as far as a lease agreement or an agreement between the medical center on Middlebelt Road using adjacent parking spaces within this shopping center? Mr. Nagy: We have investigated that matter in connection with other site plan matters and zoning matters in that area and there is evidence to indicate that there was a reliance of up to 20 parking spaces within this shopping center to serve the off-site parking needs for the medical building but there is no actual recorded documentation ,.., of that. 11240 Mr. Gniewek: So that would reduce the number of spaces available if that, in fact, is a legal agreement? Mr. Nagy: That is right. If someone else has a legal requirement for those, they cannot serve more than one use. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Robert Levin, 32640 Dequindre, Warren: I am here on behalf of Mid 7 Land Company. As most of you probably know, we have had this shopping center for approximately ten years. Most of those years there has been substantial vacancies in the center. As a result, we have attempted to lease it to various and prospective tenants with no results and while we have no problems ourselves with the cosmetics of this center, the vacancy rate was an eyesore. Mr. Robinson from Sveden House allowed us the opportunity to lease a substantial amount of space to him which would, we feel, reduce the eyesore substantially and make the quality of the center equal to the quality of the location, which we feel is a priority location. I would like to point out that Mr. Bulky's will not be vacating the center. He will be occupying a new store. The other stores that were previously occupied I believe were Ben & George's, which was a restaurant. He occupied a couple of thousand feet. There was a Fantastic Sams which vacated. Besides those two I really don't know who previously were in these stores that are now vacant. We are here to ask you to allow us to put in a restaurant that we think is an outstanding entity. We think it will bring an outstanding service to the City and importantly to the center because times being what they are, I am afraid if I am not able to put somebody in, and we have a lease that is contingent upon this ,,,,w vote, which is unfortunate for me, because if I am not allowed to put someone in, I am probably going to be faced somewhere down the road with a situation where certain people are going to move. I don't think they appreciate the marginal traffic flow which has been created, which we feel Sveden House can improve for us. Mr. Tent: Mr. Levin, you are the owner of the shopping center? Mr. Levin: Yes. Mr. Tent: I want to go back a bit. You mentioned Ben & George's. There was quite an article in the paper a few years back. Ben & George's was a viable restaurant in that location and they wanted to stay there for a long time but they couldn't afford it. They said they left because the lease was increased so much, they couldn't afford to stay so rather than stay and pay that exorbitant increase in the lease, they would leave. I was surprised because they had been there for a hundred years. If your restaurant is looking for tenants, you did have them at one time. Can you identify your leasing structure? Are you competitive with the other shopping centers as far as square footage? Are you lower or higher? Mr. Levin: Let me address the first part of your statement. Ben & George's, as far as I know, the owner retired. Our leasing was such that he did not decide to sign a new lease. How an article like that was written and if it was attributed to him, I have no knowledge of it. 11241 He retired, as far as I know. Had he been interested in continuing the restaurant operation, he would have reopened, which he has not done to my knowledge. Our leasing structure is below market probably by $1.50 to $3.00 a square foot. That is as quick and factual as I can answer it. If people are asking $10.00, I will `r.. ask $9.00, I would take $8.00. I need to fill up the center. I am not going to kid myself and ask for a premium dollar because I think I have a premium location if it is not going to get me anybody in there. Mr. Tent: I had no problem with Sveden House. I think it is a fine restaurant and it is certainly welcome in the City. My problem is I don't think there is enough parking in the area to accommodate this type of restaurant. I think Lieutenant Thorne, in his letter, covered it adequately that in this day and age, whether it is grandfathered or not, 8 1/2 foot parking bays are not good for restaurant areas. The fact is the damage being done to cars by doors being opened and closed would be horrendous. I would like that to be addressed. If we could accommodate the vehicles that are going to be parked there, I wouldn't have a problem. The way it sets now, I am looking at it very closely. Mr. Levin: The best way for me to respond, I was under the impression the parking spaces were nine feet. Be that what it may, it is something I have to address. The best way I can address it for you is the restaurant shows a seating capacity of 275 people, which if you were to assume two people were to travel per car, you would have approximately 140 people, that is assuming you filled the restaurant up every moment of every day. If you had 347 spaces and you took 140 from them, we believe we would still have ample 441.1. parking because at any day that you go out there, you won't count more than 50 cars there. Additionally because you are taking 10,000 feet, you are eliminating a large amount of the vacancies there so I won't be filling them up with other stores that are now going to be bringing in these cars because there is no space for them to open. We really feel we will have ample parking. Mr. Tent: In other words, if the parking lots were striped for 10 and 20 foot bays so the customer would park in a 10 foot wide parking space, I have no problem, but if he parks in one of the 7 1/2 foot bays, we have the problem Lt. Thorne was talking about of damaging doors. That is my concern. If you would go through this process and accommodate the 10 x 20 foot parking spaces and stripe them the same way, then I have no problem with parking. That is my big concern here is how we can accommodate that many people in that lot. Mrs. Fandrei: For the record to my fellow Commissioner, since the report from the Inspection Department Ray, by actual measurement according to our notes, all existing parking spaces on the site are 9 feet wide. There is nothing less than 9 feet. Mr. Tent: I am not going to argue. The first report indicated that we had more than we did. The drawings were incorrect. I am not satisfied with the 9 foot either whether it is grandfathered or not, we are ... planners and we are supposed to do what we think is best for the 11242 City and best for its citizens and I can't see putting something into a small size lot that would jeopardize what we feel is good constructive planning. Mr. LaPine: John, since this center has been there, to the best of your knowledge, the parking sizes have been what they are today? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: Most of my questions are for the representative of the Sveden House. If you could come up, I have a number of questions I would like to ask you. I am in favor of your going in there because I think this center needs something to revitalize it and I think it will draw people to the center. My question is what are your hours of operation? David Robinson, 7673 Jeanette, Utica: We are open from 11:00 to 8:00 daily. Mr. LaPine: So you will have your luncheon trade from 11:00 to 1:00 and then I would assume you would back off until around 4:00. Mr. Robinson: We actually are open until 3:00 for lunch and then we turn right over and are open until 8:00. Mr. LaPine: The bulk of your business would be between 11:00 and 2:00 for lunch and probably between 4:00 and 7:00 for dinner? Mr. Robinson: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: That would be the heaviest time when you would have parking coming in. You show 275 seats. Is that seats for the restaurant? I also see you have an area that is designated for a banquet room. Does the 275 seats include what is in the banquet room or is the banquet room in addition to the 275 seats? Mr. Robinson: The banquet room would be additional to that but they are used at separate times from the general trade. Mr. LaPine: The banquet room would use the same food line as the restaurant? Mr. Robinson: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The banquet room is usually not used during your busy time? Mr. Robinson: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any business meetings there? Mr. Robinson: Yes. Mr. LaPine: At most of your locations around the Metropolitan Detroit area, you have large signs, are you anticipating any signs at this location? Mr. Robinson: Nothing other than just our building sign. ,r 11243 Mr. McCann: How many seats would you estimate to be in the banquet room? Mr. Robinson: There are about 100. Mr. McCann: Theoretically if you had an after work party in there, you could have an additional 100 to the 275 in the restaurant? v.. Mr. Robinson: Theoretically it is possible to have that many in there. Mr. McCann: Is there a separate entrance for the banquet room? Mr. Robinson: They would all be entrancing through the front. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Robinson, during the daily lunch time between 11:00 and 2:00, how many people usually come in there? Let's take the one on Telegraph at Joy Road. Mr. Robinson: They would be serving approximately 150 to 200 customers for lunch. Mr. Vyhnalek: In the evening probably a little more? Mr. Robinson: Probably 200 to 250 people for dinner. Mr. Vyhnalek: That means 100 or so parking spaces should be added. Mr. LaPine: Do you serve liquor at these locations? Beer or wine? Mr. Robinson: No. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, when the parking requirements were calculated, was that banquet room taken into consideration? .r. Mr. Nagy: We calculated that and assigned it a group commercial space of 1/125. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Levin, tell us about the details of this lease arrangement with the medical facility for those 20 parking spaces. Mr. Levin: I know of no such lease agreement. I know they have requested and we have been allowing them to use 20 spaces. Beyond that I have no knowledge of a lease arrangement. I know of nothing that has been recorded. I know I have signed nothing. I know of nobody in my office who has signed anything to allow a recorded instrument. In all honesty they do use 20 spaces. Mr. Engebretson: You receive no revenue? Mr. Levin: I know of no revenue we receive. Mr. Engebretson: In order to get you closer to fitting the ordinance, you would have no problem with removing that gate and sealing off that wall? Mr. Levin: I stand corrected. There was never a lease arrangement for the parking spaces. I don't know that there still is. However, we had agreed to put in that gate to allow them better access to their building. I don't know that the agreement said anything about them parking there but it was done by us just to allow them to have 11244 better accessibility because the doctor there told us his patients, him being a podiatrist, have trouble walking from his own parking to his building. I think that is how the situation originated. They needed space that they did not have at their own building. We have put in a gate for them this year but I don't know that there Am. is any lease agreement. Mr. Engebretson: Do you run the business? Mr. Levin: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: Then I would think you would probably be aware of it unless the business is so big that you have the responsibility delegated to someone else. Mr. Levin: It is a sizable venture. Things that have been done in months past, are not always recalled by me. That doesn't mean that I didn't recall doing it, but if you are asking me if I would take away the 20 spaces, I wouldn't do it anyways because I told them they could park there. So for me to tell you something was or wasn't done wouldn't make any difference because they are entitled to the 20 spaces, as far as I am concerned, because I told them they were. Any writing that evidences that or doesn't evidence that actually doesn't make any difference. Realistically, they have my permission to park there. So if you are asking me if I would take the parking spaces away, no I wouldn't do that. Mr. Engebretson: If it came right down to it, if it made the difference between getting approval and bringing this major tenant in versus supplying these 20 parking spaces as a good neighbor to your doctor on r„ Middlebelt Road, you would choose the last? Mr. Levin: I don't know if I would but I certainly couldn't stand here and tell you that this lease would not fall through because it may very well. I don't know. I would have to sit down and reevaluate the whole situation. That is all I can tell you. I hope it doesn't come down to that because I don't want to be put in that kind of a situation. It is a very lousy situation. Mr. Engebretson: It is a very unusual one too. Mr. Levin: Very unusual but you have to understand we bought the shopping center so whatever was done prior to our buying it, that is something I have to live with. There are certain situations that have tied itself to the history of that center that we have to live with. Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to belabor a point but I think you told us that you personally made that agreement. Mr. Levin: I personally saw to it that we would put in a fence. If I mis-communicated to you let me reiterate. When we bought the center we were made aware of them using this parking space. We have never denied them use of that. This year we were asked if we could put in a gate because their patients get along better going directly from the parking lot to their building. We did. I 11245 pesonally never made any agreement nor did anyone in my office that I know of. Going back to the original agreement being made, when it was bought it was mentioned to us and that was it. Mr. Engebretson: I can understand when you have an empty building that an opportunity to accommodate a neighbor and possibly generate some cash flow would be an attractive thing under those circumstances but when you are going to fill your shopping center up, you are deficient in parking and parking space and size, to continue that agreement in the face of all those facts, it is highly unusual and I also think it is unusual that you can own a facility like that and not really understand precisely what the arrangement is regarding one of your assets. Mr. LaPine: Do you own the property where the doctors are? Mr. Levin: No sir. Mr. LaPine: So you are giving him parking out of the goodness of your heart? It isn't based on the fact that he is the tenant of one of your buildings and for you to keep him in that building you are supplying him with parking? Mr. Levin: No. I know he would pay his prorated share of the maintenance that would occur in relation to the whole parking area but no he is not a tenant of ours. Mr. Engebretson: But you do receive revenue. Mr. Levin: We haven't billed any out that I know of. You see I don't take care of it but I am sure we haven't because it is only based on the maintenance of the parking lot. Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against this petition and the reason I am voting against it, it is not that I don't want a Sveden House in the City of Livonia, I think it is great. I agree with Mr. LaPine I think we need something to renovate that particular shopping center but this is contrary to all good planning when we are talking about parking of automobiles. We have a deficiency and we are talking now about 100 more additional spaces for a meeting hall. The thing that concerns me is if we approve this, we are going to buy problems and when we look at it in another year or two we are going to wonder how all those cars are going to get in and out of that parking lot. I respect Lt. Thorne a lot. I respect his judgment and also William MacDonald's. They have issued two strong letters here indicating the parking situation. I feel they more or less told me what they can expect to happen and we have asked them as authorities and they have given us the actual facts. I would like these two letters to be passed on to the ZBA so they can see how they feel about these cramped quarters and about eliminating parking spaces and damage being done to doors. They address themselves to restaurants and commercial not office spaces. I think if we go ahead and allow this to happen, we are not doing our work. 11246 Mr. Vyhnalek: That is why we are giving it to the ZBA to settle the parking problem and I feel we have to have some faith in them to resolve it. I contradict Mr. Tent. I think the ZBA will do a good job. Mr. Tent: Mr. Vyhnalek, we are in violation if we go ahead. This does not meet the ordinance. We can't pass it. Now There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-2-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #8-418-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Petition 90-7-2-23 by Robert Levin on behalf of Mid 7 Land Company requesting waiver use approval to operate a cafeteria-style full service restaurant (Sveden House) on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road west of Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-7-2-23 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a deficient number of off-street parking spaces and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the site plan shall be corrected so as to accurately reflect the correct number of parking spaces on the site and thereafter adhered to and the corrected site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Inspection Department for the record. 2) That the number of customer seats in the proposed restaurant shall be limited to 275. Amy for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 4) That the proposed use will assist in attracting a greater volume of customers to the M.C. Plaza Shopping Center, which will inure to the overall benefit of the center. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson ABSENT: None 11247 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would ask that when this goes on to the Zoning Board of Appeals that you would please alert them to this parking situation and even suggest that Inspection or some appropriate Now department communicate with that doctor to find out from his point of view what the arrangement is relative to those 20 spaces so they will know how to deal with that particular issue so it does not have to be up in the air as it is here and maybe the Mid 7 Land Company would like to have a letter on file relative to this. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-2-24 by Bill Knapps Michigan Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this where the Jaycees held their carnival a couple of years ago? Mr. Nagy: Several years ago. Mr. Vyhnalek: So it is a pretty big piece of property. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau setting forth the ... following comments: 1. The general plan is acceptable and well developed. 2. I would suggest sidewalks be added as follows: A. Along the Shelden Center drive at least to the first drive north of Plymouth Road. B. Along the west side of Woodring for a distance of approximately 270 feet, with extensions on the east and west side of Woodring to match the walk that runs along the south side of the library. C. A walk along the north side off the building from the entrance to the walk in (B). A sign indicating entrance at the junction of the walks might be desirable. The reason for this is to provide a safe pedestrian way for any pedestrians who may wish to patronize the restaurant. Some residents or library patrons may desire to walk rather than drive. Without the walks, they are forced to walk in the drives, which is unsafe, especially if young children are involved. It would also reduce the traffic over the landscape areas. 3. I would recommend relocating the "fifth" handicapped space from the aisle next to Plymouth Road to a space adjacent to the building. This would shorten the distance a handicapped person would have to travel and reduce the exposure to vehicular traffic at the same time. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The Landscape Plan does not indicate complete underground sprinkler system or that sod is required in all lawn areas. 11248 Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Richard Higgins, 110 Knapp Drive, Battle Creek: I am Board Chairman of Bill Knapps. As is suggested by the large positioning drawing up here, this property is located at the southwest corner of Woodring Avenue and Plymouth Road. The property is some 170 feet of frontage by 360 feet of depth. The building shown here is some 5230 square feet seating 186 people. (Mr. Higgins showed a picture). The deficiencies that were noted concerning the sidewalks, we do have a sidewalk here and as far as the irrigation system, we would expect to do that so that is not a problem. I think any further questions you would have, I would be happy to elaborate on for you, clarify for you, whatever. Mr. Tent: To follow up what you were saying about the sidewalks. You have indicated you will have sidewalks? Mr. Higgins: That is no problem for us. Mr. Tent: You will have a sprinkling system? Mr. Higgins: Irrigation is something we would expect to do because you can't keep the landscaping with out it. Mr. McCann: Mr. Higgins, have you gone with any of your separate stores into a strip mall before? Mr. Higgins: The stores that we would have where we would occupy what might be called a joint area would be Ann Arbor where we have been in business since 1958 and we have a store that is in a like position on frontage by itself in Saginaw since 1967 and there is one on the "' front of property in Ft. Myers, Florida, which is three years old. Mr. McCann: They have a lot of vacancies in that mall. There is probably enough space, I am sure, to locate a restaurant. Have you considered that? Mr. Higgins: As a corporate policy we have agreed that we will not put restaurants into mall fronts. We always insist on free standing buildings. Mr. McCann: Let me explain my problem. That mall has been there for a number of years. One of the things I like at least about this mall is the wide open space in front of the mall. They didn't do an L-shape and bring it right out to the road. We have a public library that has a lot of green land around it. It is set back and it is a nice view when you come down Plymouth Road. It is one of the few spots where you don't have a dozen businesses within ten feet of the road. I was hoping to try to keep that setback there and I understand your desire for a freestanding building. However, would you be in a position to move it back another 50 or 75 feet so that the view, right now people coming down Plymouth Road will see your restaurant and it will hide the library and to me it is bringing everything right out front again. What I am looking for is a gradual progression to it. It would put it towards the back. Would that be a possibility? 11249 Mr. Higgins: Of course visibility is very, very essential to our business. I am sure you can appreciate that. The last thing we want to do is hide any of the building if we can avoid doing it. I think what we did here, I would like to have Mr. Knowles who is with the Planning Consultants that did the layout, help me. I think the setback of the library we are consistent with that. Are we further back than the library? Jack Knowles: Slightly ahead of them. We always try to get as much patron parking as we can, front door wise, and we thought that the layout here and the way it worked with the access for people dropping off patrons at the front door worked out well for us. We would really feel hurt if we had to put it back further. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Higgins, we frequent your Six Mile and Newburgh restaurant and I understand Jim's concerns but you have a number of seniors and if your building is located as it is right now it is more accessible to your patrons. Mr. Higgins: That was the reason we designed it the way we did. Mrs. Fandrei: Would you please describe the exterior construction of the building? Mr. Higgins: The construction is consistent with Six Mile in Livonia excepting that as a result of our entrance into the state of Florida we went with the use of a natural color brick. We liked it so well down there that we are carrying it into the midwest now and what we would be constructing this would be face brick, like the other one, except it would be natural brick not to be painted. The gable ends would be aluminim siding and essentially gives us a building that we don't have to do any painting of. Mrs. Fandrei: We normally ask for samples. We neglected to do that. Did you by chance bring any samples of the exterior? Mr. Higgins: I did not. Mrs. Fandrei: Could you describe the contrasting colors? Mr. Higgins: There is a cranberry stripe and then the brick itself would be beige or off-white and the doors are green. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, how is the parking? The lot they have now, nothing is there. Is that right? Mr. Nagy: It is just a parking lot. Landscaping and parking but it is parking for most part. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is landscaping and parking. So they are going to lose 224 spaces. How many do you have in your drawing? Mr. Higgins: There are 108 spaces on this site. Mr. Vyhnalek: Our notes say they could pave an area in the rear of the shopping center for 150 spaces. Has anybody talked to Mr. Samuels? 11250 Mr. Higgins: Yes. Mr. Thomas is the Property Manager for Mr. Samuels. Earl Thomas, 27716 W. Seven Mile: I am a representative of J & W Management, owners of the shopping center: We would be willing to give them additional parking in the back if necessary. Now Mr. Vyhnalek: There are no entrances from the back to the stores is there at that shopping center? Mr. Nagy: There are service doors. Mr. Vyhnalek: The people would still have to walk all the way around? Mr. Nagy: There is some access but it is not universal. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Ordinance Enforcement Division did not mention anything about it so they are satisfied? Mr. Nagy: They are satisified the site has the capacity to meet all of the off-street parking requirements. We pointed out in our notes that we think some areas have to be upgraded to make the parking meet the ordinance standards in terms of pavement, delineated driveway width, parking bay sizes. We don't argue that the site has the capacity, we just think it should be upgraded and striped to make it more convenient for the patrons of the center. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Thomas, is that going to be done? Mr. Thomas: Yes. I don't need to tell you people that is one of the older centers we have in this City and we are presently doing an upgrade now on a complete facia and mansard and we are in the process of Now sprinkling the greenbelt along Farmington Road and Plymouth as an upgrading now. In the very near future I will be redoing the front of Frankies because this happens to be a part of the agreement with our sale to Bill Knapps that we would not put another restaurant in the center so they would be the only food establishment there. We are hoping to split that building up. To answer your question directly, we would be willing to give cross parking agreement on the back side of that area to the site. One of the reasons we are basically selling this is to get revenue out of it and I had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals a couple of months ago regarding signage and some questions came up in reference to what you are asking and a good percentage of what we are going to derive in revenue will be taken to redo the complete parking lot. The complete parking lot will be redone, repaved and restriped. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is good because this board had your shopping center very much in concern when the Mai Kai across the street was before us. The majority of these board members were concerned about your shopping center and I am glad you are improving it and I think that bringing in a well known restaurant will help it because we want to keep that shopping center viable because it was getting run down at one time. Mr. Engebretson: When we talk about cross licensing additional parking to the rear, are you referring Mr. Thomas to that space immediately south aw of the restaurant, which is presently a green area? 11251 Mr. Thomas: Yes. Mr. Tent: Mr. Thomas, just like you have indicated here that shopping center was a mess for a long time. All of a sudden you have a nice facade and it looks pretty. Was that the reason because Bill Knapps was coming into the area? Mr. Thomas: No. We agreed to do it prior to their coming into the center. Mr. Tent: I want to compliment you on it. Mr. Thomas: Thank you. We are really enthused. I don't think we could have a better tenant that would add to the aesthetics of that center than Bill Knapps. Mr. Tent: I remember when it had that yellow facade in the front. Now it does have some quality. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, would you know what the setback is for the library and what the setback is for the building that is proposed? Mr. Nagy: The proposed building is 137 feet south of the right-of-way line of Plymouth Road and that is approximately what the library is. The library is slightly closer to Plymouth Road at about 130 feet. Mr. Gniewek: The line of sight coming from the west going east, do you feel the setback as proposed by the restaurant would really cause a problem as far as vision of the library is concerned? Mr. Nagy: I don't think it will be noticeable. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Higgins, how many years has Bill Knapps been using internal compaction in your restaurants? Mr. Higgins: Never in terms of compaction but internal refrigerated refuse since 1958. Mr. Kluver: You are genius' because nobody else can do it. Mr. Higgins: I will be very honest and that is this restaurant is not designed with it and the reason we have had to do away with it is a singular one and that is because in most municipalities that exist in the states that we operate because they grant a franchies for the pickup of materials, they will not pick up refuse from us now any way but via what I commonly call a dumpster so we have gone away from that only because of that reason. It was something we liked but we have been legislated out of this. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add my comments to Mr. Thomas for the face-lift you have given this shopping center in your efforts to attract a first class business like this to move into that area should this petition be approved. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity also to ask you what that trailer is in the back of that building? Mr. Higgins: It will be gone. I apologize for that. 11252 Mr. Morrow: Sometime ago they were entertaining a fast food type of restaurant across the street. I was not in favor of that. I don't want to go on record saying I am favoring a restaurant on the other side unless there is a difference. From my standpoint it is nice to see what would be considered a sit down restaurant versus a fast food N,, restaurant on Plymouth Road for that reason I didn't favor the "restaurant" across the street. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Morrow I think we all recognize that this is an entirely different situation. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-2-24 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##8-419-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Petition 90-7-2-24 by Bill Knapps Michigan Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-7-2-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 7-23-90 prepared by Dietrich, Bailey & Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 6 dated 7-23-90 prepared by Dietrich, Bailey & Associates, Inc. which shall include a complete underground sprinkler system, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2 by Robert Lee Wood, Architect which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 4) That the sidewalks as proposed by the Traffic Bureau's letter dated July 30, 1990 be included on the site plan and the additional parking that the management company has agreed to also be included on the site plan. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent and surrounding uses in the area. 11253 4) That the proposed use will tend to assist the Shelden Shopping Center in attracting a greater volume of customers to the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance r„ #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver: The mechanical facilities which will service this particular restaurant, are they all enclosed internally? Mr. Higgins: No they are not. Mr. Kluver: They also should be shown on the site plan. Mr. Higgins: Those go within the landscaped areas to reflect the positioning of those units. Mr. Kluver: They should be shown on the site plan with a concrete pad with the proper type of landscaping around it. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to ask the petitioner to be sure the site plan does show those things prior to our next meeting during which time this proposal, even if it is approved is really in limbo, until we have an opportunity to rectify any oversights so please tend to those matters and have that done by this time next week. Mr. LaPine: Your Six Mile location, do you now have inside compaction? Mr. Higgins: Yes we do. Mr. LaPine: How do you get rid of your refuse there if Waste Management will not accept it? Mr. Higgins: There are still some private haulers, people who will contract separately to pick up refuse of any form and typically our refuse is in polyethylene bags but they are in plastic containers and they take the bags away. Mr. LaPine: I guess my question is if you have it at Six Mile and you have someone who can pick it up there, why can't we have it at this location? Mr. Higgins: The frightening part is that all of a sudden an ordinance will be passed which prohibits that ability. That is what has happened to us in other cities and that is why we don't incorporate it now into the construction of the building. We get legislated out of it. Mr. LaPine: Do the cities start the legislation? Mr. Higgins: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Can you anticipate anything like that happening here John? Mr. Nagy: No. 11254 Mr. LaPine: I would prefer not to have a dumpster there and go ahead with what you have. Mr. Higgins: The only real problem is we have now architectually phased it out of our buildings because we can't accomplish it and then to have to go back and redesign the whole building to put it inside, it becomes very major because it affects the whole interior flow. Mr. Vyhnalek: In the State of Michigan have there been any municipalities that have passed an ordinance like that? Mr. Higgins: You can't do it in Ann Arbor and Troy. I think there are about 3 or 4 of them in the state of Michigan out of 30 some units. In the state of Florida every single one. Mr. LaPine: I am not going to press the issue because I am like the other members of this Commission, we are happy to have you here. It is just we have tried in most cases to get inside compaction because we don't like dumpsters. There are two problems with dumpsters. Number 1 they are ugly and number 2 when they are there the concerns that pick them up do not worry about them like you do and before you know it we have an eyesore. Mr. Higgins: I understand. I can assure you we don't really like them either. I can assure you that when we put this on the site plan we landscape around it. It is going to be hard to find. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Higgins I would recommend you do your home work as far as those buildings are concerned because I think when it gets to the Council level, they are going to be asking you the same thing. IOW Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bakewell when you make your presentation here will you cover this item and the following two items at the same time. We will deal with all three public hearings concurrently. We will vote on them separately. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the properties under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their department has no objections to this development. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the proposed layout. We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the plat is acceptable with a serious reservation concerning Margareta Drive. They state they are concerned with the potential of traffic cutting through Blue Skies from Seven Mile Road and the Victor Project, or vice-versa, to avoid the congestion that will occur at Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads. 11255 Due to the developments in the Victor Prtoject, a signal will undoubtedly be a necessity at Seven Mile and Victor Parkway within the next two - three years. Unless an intersection design is done that will make it very unattractive, many drivers may attempt to enter Blue Skies to Margareta and then via Caliburn Drive to N„` Newburgh, or vice-versa. Blue Skies Drive is only a 20 foot blacktop road with no sidewalks in a subdivision that, historically, has been a "closed area" with very little traffic. On the other hand, we cannot forecast traffic volumes and patterns in this area with total certainty. For example, will the volume and pattern of traffic interfere with the Melody Manor Subdivision residents entering and exiting their area. In that case, Margareta would provide an alternate entrance to their subdivision. These concerns have also been voiced by several residents of the Melody Manor area. Therefore, I propose the following: Margareta Drive should be set aside as an easement for a period of five years. By that time, the traffic patterns along Seven Mile Road and Newburgh should be developed and a decision to open or delete Margareta can be made that would be advantageous to all concerned. I would also recommend that a portion of Lot 56 and Lot 82 (Caliburn #3) could be included in the easement to meet the lot size requirement. In the event that the final decision is made to put in the street, the excess over the right-of-way would be returned to the residents. If the decision is made to delete the street, a full lot would be available to build another house. wow I recognize that this is a novel solution to the problem but I urge you to give it serious consideration. Lastly, we have received a letter from Barry and Linda Jecewski of 18504 Blue Skies court stating they wish to advise the Planning Commission of their concerns with the development of this subdivision. With regard to Margarita Drive to join Caliburn Drive, they state by opening the street Prides Court Subdivision will be provided with two exits allowing for improved fire and police protection. In addition it will save the City money by providing safe and effective traffic routing of school buses, trash pick-up and snow removal. In regard to the restriction to keep tree line between the two subdivisions, they state the Prides Court developer made every attempt to keep the beautiful trees. They hope Caliburn developer will agree. We have a "landscape easement" that states no living tree shall be removed. If our landscape is disturbed or destroyed the Caliburn developer must restore the natural environment. They end by saying Let's keep Livonia a safe and beautiful place to live. William Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: If I may, your astute Planning Department indicated to me on Caliburn Manor #3 I neglected to show on the first two lots that are contiguous to Seven Mile Road the 30 foot landscape area so I have 12 copies to show that correction. (Mr. Roskelly passed out the new plans). First of all I am 11256 somewhat confused. Because of traffic and the generation of traffic we were mandated to put in a fifth lane on Newburgh Road, because of Caliburn being the tale of the dog of Victor and 7 Mile Crossing and all these others. Nevertheless, we have placed a fifth lane. I can't believe that Traffic is telling us that you are happy with a subdivision with approximately 60 homes, Melody Nor Manor and Prides Court, with one entrance and one exit. If we go over to Caliburn Estates, we were mandated to tie in three existing dead end streets and I can't see the reasoning in not cutting in Margareta. (Mr. Roskelly displayed drawing on easel). If we consider Caliburn Manor #2, it ties into the existing approved Caliburn Manor #1. Again, our street pattern is such that we have complete access in and through Sub 1 and Sub 2 as well as an entrance and exit to Margareta. I think you will find in view of the fact that the approved road presently on Blue Skies Drive is a very narrow 20 to 22 foot blacktop skin road, we in turn have 34 foot back to back curbs and gutters. It would seem to me that this would only encourage the majority of the people from Melody Manor and Prides Court to take the advantage and use this outlet to get out to Newburgh Road. Certainly it is a much more improved road. It is a much wider and safer road. On Caliburn Manor #3, which lies directly north of this up to Seven Mile, again we continue the road straight up to Seven Mile. We have again traffic patterns that connect Newburgh Road, Seven Mile as well as Margareta. Caliburn Estates Subdivision on the east side originally on the drawing we showed this little pocket cul-de-sac terminating at Curtis. I am now including that same configuration and calling it #2, which encompasses 63 lots. Again, we have a traffic pattern, good connections, adequate ingress and egress and no ingress and egress for this cul-de-sac so it is isolated by itself. I think we will find that all the lots comply with the zoning ordinance and I mos` would hope you would agree with my request. Kenneth Stoddart, 18824 Blue Skies: I have lived there for 31 years. The Melody Manor Subdivision was completed almost in its entirety over 20 years ago. The traffic was minimal. One entrance was more than adequate. Never was there a problem other than the time when they paved the roads. They added Prides Court 3 to 4 years ago. The net result was traffic in front of my house on Blue Skies tripled. I now am very careful and I turn on the turn signals before I turn into my driveway. It is only beginning because we are already experiencing traffic problems turning left out of the subdivision because of the traffic coming from the Victor project which is only about ten percent completed now. If you open Margareta, every time there will be any difficulty at that corner, all of that traffic from there from Newburgh and Seven Mile will flow through that 20 foot wide road trying to find a way to escape. I think opening Margareta is a serious mistake. My personal opinion is if you do open Margareta, I probably will plan on moving as soon as I can arrange it. Mr. Vyhnalek: That new street is 34 feet wide. Wouldn't that take the traffic if something happened at Seven Mile and Newburgh? Mr. Stoddart: It will take some of the traffic but the Victor project is far more important. When the Victor project starts to unload you are 11257 talking 2,000 cars and what will happen if they can't turn left. They will come straight across. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is conceivable. r., Mr. Stoddard: This is where the real problem lies. Bob Zapalski, 18600 Blue Skies: It is the consensus of the Prides Court Homeowners Association that most of the people in our subdivision want Margareta to go through. All your previous plans have shown Margareta going through and we were counting on it when we purchased our homes. We feel the value and safety of our sub is in jeopardy if the street does not go through. Furthermore, I don't know if you aware of it but last Spring an Edison truck was blocking Blue Skies and the school bus could not get in. It is the only entrance and exit into that park. To address the traffic light issue. We do need a traffic light. The traffic is backing up and it is getting awful fast. It is hard to make a left turn out of Blue Skies in the morning. I also have two more letters from homeowners stating they would like Margareta open. (He presented the letters to the Commissioners). Don Vartoogian, 18569 Blue Skies: I am also in favor of Margareta being opened up. I myself could use the alternate road going out to Seven Mile both for leaving and coming into the subdivision. Where Blue Skies comes in, in relation to the freeway, if you exit the freeway going east on Seven Mile by the time you accelerate you are already trying to decelerate to get into Blue Skies. Cars, as is typical, when they take off from the exit ramp will be accelerating and they don't expect to be stopping as quick as they have to. I think a lot of the traffic would be using the new alternate road. Also from a safety reason, that is our only exit and we could have some situation come up, a fire or accident or whatever, where we could not get in or out and an emergency vehicle could not get in or out of our subdivision, our area, anywhere in there if we didn't have an alternate route. For that reason we feel it is a real necessity that we have an alternate route. As far as people coming through, I feel the configuration they have of the winding roads, I think that is going to take care of a lot of people who might try to go through. It wouldn't be worthwhile for them to be winding around and probably getting lost. I hope you accept the plan as it is. Ron Tarakis, 37885 Margareta: I have lived for twelve years in the City of Livonia and for two years in Prides Court. I am in support of the opening of Margareta for a number of reasons. Blue Skies is a very narrow street. It is very difficult for two cars to pass by without having an accident. There are no sidewalks in that area. People walk in those streets. It is dangerous. We need an alternate road. I do not want my kids walking or riding their bikes in that area because traffic has picked up. An alternate route is the only sensible alternative to fixing this problem. The first problem we have are the cars heading east on Seven Mile are not visible until the last moment so making a left turn is extremely dangerous. It is compounded buy the traffic flow in the morning by businesses and Schoolcraft College. People come off I-275, loop around, head 11258 east and wrap around the other way because they can't make a right turn coming off 275. We would have to deal with this problem for at least two years or until some type of traffic light is set up in that area. Victor Park has only started. We expect that to make the situation even worse or compound it. I have sat at that `qui"' interesection waiting for people turning left into Victor Park for as long as 15 to 20 minutes. In the winter it is going to be an even more dangerous situation because people are sliding and slipping in that area. The new construction that has been designed in the newer sub on Newburgh has taken into consideration traffic flow situations that can help alleviate any problem having to deal with the Blue Skies situation. I, as an individual who lives on Margareta, would assure you that my traffic pattern, if I had the chance, in the interest of the first gentleman, would be to alleviate his traffic problems by my going out another route. There is a serious problem there and those are the best ways I think to deal with it. I wish you would take into consideration that this is a very important issue to us that live in that area. We did purchase our homes with that consideration in mind because we are locked in both as you heard earlier the school bus situation or any other medical emergency situation that should occur. Whenever you have only one entrance, one exit, you are setting yourself up for problems and that population in that area has almost doubled so please take that into consideration when you are making your decision. Nancy Vreeland, 18536 Blue Skies Court: I want Margareta to go through. Last year when the school bus couldn't get through, my one big concern was what if my house was on fire. What if I needed emergency help. How would the ambulance get through? I have three small children. I don't want them to have to go up to Blue Skies to go out to visit their friends who are going to be living in this new neighborhood. It would be nice for us to be able to get on our bikes and ride through this new neighborhood. These people that live on Margareta where their street is so narrow, maybe the City should look into widening their street and putting in sidewalks for these people. I can't think of anywhere in Livonia where there aren't sidewalks. I think it is very important that Margareta go through for the simple fact that I have mentioned and everybody else before me fire, snow removal, emergency, the school bus. It would be a lot easier to come in one entrance and make a complete loop. Patty Polzin, 37861 Pickford: I am in the Prides Court Subdivision. I also vote that Margareta Street will go through. We are concerned about the safety in the subdivision. It is a very narrow street and we have had a lot of complaints from Melody Manor about us coming through there and I feel it would cut down on the traffic. Also for our property values. When we bought our homes we had counted on that street going through. There is a colonial in our sub right now that didn't sell because of the entrance the way it was. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, is it safe to assume all of these subdivisions have proper sidewalks and street lights, etc. Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: Speaking to Mr. Stoddart who spoke about the traffic and in case of emergency, coming down Blue Skies and if Margareta were open, this 11259 would cause a great deal of problems in the area. I contend if there were a problem and cars did come up to Seven Mile into the subdivision down Blue Skies and Margareta was closed off, you would have a greater problem because there would be no place for them to go except through that subdivision. I think the posting of signs `ur may not be the solution but the "No Thru Traffic" and "No Commercial Traffic" would help to alleviate any of those vehicles coming down those streets and perhaps posting of a police vehicle there for some time would help to alleviate some of those problems. I think that the Margareta opening is possibly a safer situation. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding these item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2, Caliburn Estates Subdivision #2 and Caliburn Manor Subdivision #3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-420-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat be approved for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2 for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all of the standards and requirements set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and in the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That no City department objects to approval of the Preliminary Plat. 3) That the proposed design of the Preliminary Plat provides a good solution to the development of the subject land area in conformance with good subdivision design principles. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #8-421-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivision #2 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat be approved for Caliburn Estates Subdivision #2 subject to submittal of a landscape plan for the greenbelt easements shown on Lots 78 and 79 to Noy 11260 the Planning Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final Plat for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all of the standards and requirements set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and in the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That no City department objects to approval of the Preliminary Plat. 3) That the proposed design of the Preliminary Plat provides a good solution to development of the subject land area in conformance with good subdivision design principles. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-422-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1990 on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #3 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #3 be approved subject to the submittal of a landscape plan for the greenbelt shown on Lots 96 and 97 to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final Plat for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all of the standards and requirements set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That no City department objects to approval of the Preliminary Plat. 3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat represnts a good solution to development of the subject land in conformance with good subdivision design principles. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11261 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-423-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-4-3-3 by James H. and Katherine McLain requesting the vacating of a 10 foot wide drainage easement across Lot 43 of Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision located on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-4-3-3 be approved subject to compliance with all of the conditions imposed on the petitioner by the Department of Natural Resources and the City of Livonia's Engineering Department in connection with the relocation of an existing drainage ditch for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is no longer required to protect any public drainage facilities. 2) That the subject land area can be more advantageously utilized for private purposes. 3) That no City department or public utility company objects to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Onb a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #8-424-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 3.01 of the zoning Ordinance #543 so as to change the name of the P.S. district to OS and to list the three new zoning districts, NP, Nature Preserves, R-C, Condominium Residential, and R-8C, High-Rise Condominium Residential. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 11262 #8-425-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 604th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 17, 1990 are approved. '4411" Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-426-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 605th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 31, 1990 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-7-8-10 by Budget Rent A Car requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a small addition to an existing building on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Priscilla in Section 28 until the study meeting of September 11, 1990. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei "lay ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #8-427-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 90-7-8-10 by Budget Rent A Car requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a small addition to an existing building on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Priscilla in Section 28 for the following reasons: 1) The proposed addition would be detrimental to and incompatible with the appropriate and orderly development in the surrounding neighborhood; 2) The proposed addition would further increase the intensity of a use that has already impacted the harmony of the adjacent residential neighborhood by the very nature of its business operation. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 44r. 11263 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 606th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on August 14, 1990 was adjourned at 11:12 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary ATTEST: �iC. C 111 ,01.(, �� Jac k� Engebx etson, Chairman jg New w