Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-03-28 13962 MINUTES OF THE 701st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 28, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 701st Regular Meeting & 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 55 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann William T.Pine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: R. Lee Morrow 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 and/or a vacating petition. Planning Cb mmission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann was Acting Secretary in the absence of Mr. Morrow. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-1-4 by Thomas Racklyeft representing McDonald's Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have received a petition with 313 signatures which reads as follows: "We the residents and voters of the City of Livonia strongly oppose a zoning change to allow McDonald's Restaurant to occupy a soon-to-be-vacated Comerica Bank at Five Mile & Newburgh Roads. We take pride in our homes, our neighborhood and our City, and are constantly picking up the rubbish from that strip mall now. The Shopping Center at Five & Newburgh is surely the most poorly maintained of any in our City and is a long long way from what was promised when it was built. We do not need any 13963 more throw away cups and containers from there. Please also consider the traffic congestion especially on the Newburgh side of the strip mall that abuts St. Edith Church, St. Edith Gidde School and the Villa Marie Senior Citizens complex. It is difficult to exit that property onto Newburgh now, then you add the travelers from I-96 that can make a quick entrance and exit for a cup of McDonald's infamous coffee. If you deny this request you will be saving a lot of people from 'scalding hot coffee'. Thank you for considering our interests and please deny any more fast-food restaurants in that strip mall (five is enough). We didn't want it two years ago, we don't want it now and we will continue to fight it in the future if we have to." We have also received 18 identical letters from residents. These letters read as follows: "This letter is in opposition to Mr. Racklyeft's petition to rezone the property described in the above-cited petition for the following reasons: Traffic: The proposed area is a high traffic zone. Adding a fast food restaurant that will attract young, inexperienced drivers will only add to the problem. Traffic on Richfield and Lancaster is increasing because many drivers use the streets to avoid the traffic light at Five Mile and Newburgh. Cars going at an excessive rate of speed and ignoring the stop signs have created a hazard that will only increase with the addition of a fast food restaurant. Public Nuisance: The parking lot adjacent to the stores in the northwest corner of Five Mile and Newburgh is a haven for unsupervised youngsters who paint gang graffiti on the building, men who use the area as an outdoor restroom and a lunch �... area and rendezvous point for an assortment of people. Quick, cheap food will increase the unacceptable use of this area. Rodents: The creek along Lancaster offers skunks, possum, rats and raccoons a water supply. McDonald's and their dumpsters would provide the food necessary for their survival. For these reasons and because I do not want to see the value of my property decrease, I urge the Commission to deny the request." We have also received a letter from Carole J. Goodfellow of 15408 Richfield stating: "I am writing in opposition to Mr. Racklyeft's petition to rezone the property described in the above-cited petition. I oppose having a MacDonald's restaurant put into this building for the following reasons: Traffic: Traffic entering and exiting the shopping center at the east exit is extremely high. It is almost impossible to turn east on Five Mile from Richfield because of the high volume of left-hand turns into the shopping center. I have personally witnessed two accidents. The light at Five Mile is so close that the two exits that would be used by MacDonald's would create a dangerous intersection. The addition of a fast food restaurant would only exacerbate a bad situation. Richfield and Lancaster are increasingly being used by non-resident traffic as a means to avoid the light at Five Mile and Newburgh. The numerous cars racing down the two streets ignoring the posted speed limit and the stop signs are creating a 13964 hazard and inconvenience for the residents of these two streets." The comments on Public Nuisance and Rodents are the same as the last letter I read, and she is urging the Commission to deny the petition. We have another letter from Gerald and Dorothy Burke who live on Richfield. It reads as follows: "We oppose the rezoning of the COMERICA Bank parcel to accommodate a McDonalds restaurant in 'The Village' shopping center at the southwest corner of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. Our house is on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Richfield, directly across from the 'The Village' shopping center. We currently walk across the street to bank at COMERICA and shop at the Farmer Jack market and other stores in the center. This is very convenient - but living across the street from a shopping center has some drawbacks, namely - TRAFFIC, NOISE and TRASH. Now, with the possibility of a McDonalds in the shopping center, we are additionally concerned about the APPEARANCE of the center and the addition of an ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE to the neighborhoodl. APPEARANCE Five Mile Road along most of its length in Livonia is residential with commercial development at the major intersections. As residents along Five Mile Road, we make a special effort to keep the neighborhood looking good. We believe the COMERICA building and grounds, while closer to Five Mile Road than the rest of the shopping center, has a good appearance and does not detract from the residential appearance of the neighborhood on the north side of Five Mile Road. We feel the addition of a McDonalds with the associated signs and decor would have a negative impact on the APPEARANCE of the shopping center and the neighborhood. TRAFFIC and NOISE Rush hour TRAFFIC in the area is already heavy and made complex by the mini-mall accesses on the north side of Five Mile just west of Newburgh. We have found from experience that during busy TRAFFIC times it is better to select alternate streets when leaving the neighborhood. COMERICA bank keeps normal business hours and bank generated TRAFFIC and NOISE stops when the bank closes. With McDonalds hours of operation we would expect greatly increased TRAFFIC with the associated NOISE for a longer period each work day, and additionally, continuing through the weekends. TRASH 'The Village' shopping center is reasonably well maintained - but there is no stopping windblown discarded TRASH from blowing across the street. We make a special effort to check and pick up TRASH daily to keep the neighborhood looking clean. We expect McDonalds branded TRASH will add to the problem. ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE In addition to the issues above (APPEARANCE, TRAFFIC & NOISE, TRASH) there are currently occasional demonstrations of automotive power (squealing tires) and auto sound systems (booming bass sounds) . We are concerned that the McDonalds would provide a gathering place for people who will make contests of demonstrating the superiority of their particular possessions, attitudes or points of view. SUMMARY Please deny the petition to rezone the COMERICA parcel to accommodate a McDonalds restaurant. Like everyone else we would 13965 like to maintain or improve our QUALITY of LIFE. A McDonalds across the street will only add to our current problems." We have also received a letter from Elisa and Steven Filipp which reads as follows: "We both strongly oppose the rezoning petition for Section 19 of the NE corner of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. The obvious reasons for opposition are: decreased property values, increase of traffic, public nuisance, trash, noise, etc. But, the overwhelming reason is Livonia just DOLS NCR need another McDonald's restaurant! There is one located just down the road on Five Mile near Haggerty. Do we want to live in a community with a fast food restaurant every mile?? NO! So, to maintain Livonia as a desirable community to live and raise a family, we strongly urge the commission to keep the area zoned C-1 Local Business! !" Tastly, we have a letter from Robert C. Zarras, Attorney at Law, 15330 Richfield Avenue. This letter reads as follows: "I am co-owner of the home located at 15330 Richfield Ave. This is directly across Five Mile Rd from the site of the proposed McDonald's. I am greatly opposed to the addition of any new business construction in this already Orly over developed area. To begin, it is important to point out that the mall referred to in Mrs. Goodfellow's letter has insufficient parking. This leads to traffic congestion, potential for accidents, and overflow parking of commercial customers on our street. The addition of a McDonald's restaurant with the accompanying high volume traffic would have potentially disastrous effects on this area. Additionally, in today's litigious society, for the City ` ow Planning Commission to allow McDonald's to build with this knowledge in mind, I think you would be inviting lawsuits against the city itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying McDonald's doesn't belong in this community, but as we all know there is a McDonald's restaurant already serving the area less that one mile west of this proposed location If McDonald's needs to be in this area so concentrated, perhaps they should try to help our community a little by opening a walk up restaurant in one of the several vacant storefronts in existing business frontage on the southwest and northeast corners of this intersection. The plain facts show that this already crowded area just can't handle another fast food restaurant. In closing, I would like to address possible uses for this land. If Comerica is to close, I would like to suggest that no additional commercial development be allowed. Perhaps the Commission could think of a proper way to employ the power of eminent domain to get the existing problems at this intersection in order. A municipal parking lot, or better yet a small well thought out park facility, like the one on the western end of this commercial area could be created. This area has too much business development concentrated in it already. I urge you to deny any petition to rezone this area to accommodate a McDonald's restaurant. Thank you for your consideration." That is the extent of our correspondence. 13966 Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. 'Ibm Racklyeft, 2000 Town Center, Southfield: I would like to begin with discussing +o. first of all the petition. The petition is for rezoning. My understanding is we are not dealing with a specific use at this point. We are dealing with rezoning of property to allow different uses other than what is permitted under C-1. I would like to make a few comments on the property itself. In our opinion the request for rezoning that property to C-2 is appropriate. As mentioned and shown on the map, there is C-2 zoning across the street. The Shell station, which was not pointed out but is adjacent to the property, although it is zoned C-1 is a service station use permitted only in C-2, and given the property dimensions, which are about 150'x150', it seems like the service station being a C-2 use will be there for some time. This particular parcel is doing nothing more than matching the other side of the street under a C-2 use. I might also mention that under the C-1 zoning in shopping centers, as was alluded to in some of the letters, restaurants are permitted up to 30 seats but they are permitted throughout the shopping center. This particular C-i zoning is referred to in your ordinance as local business. The C-2 zoning is referred to as general business. I am not sure of the difference between the two other than the intensity under C-2 zoning would lead me to believe that some of the concerns i.e. traffic, etc. would be present. However, under C-1 I see a large supermarket with heavy business. I also point out that McDonald's throughout numerous studies, and I will cite one in which we interviewed 325,000 customers throughout 14 major cities, 72% of those customers interviewed were either coming from home, coming from work or coming from shopping to our restaurants. The other part of that is our typical trade area, about 70% of that number comes within a trade area of approximately three minutes. To me that is local business. So I think in overall looking at this the C-2 zoning in my view, although the expectations in terms of trying to look at traffic, etc. are a concern, there are similar conflicts between the two, and I think overall it is a natural fit in this particular location. I could provide this board, if they care to hear, with some traffic information based on 1,1'E, if you would like to go through it. Needless to say what I would tell you in looking at it that increased traffic, if the use were a McDonald's restaurant, the traffic generated by McDonald's during peak periods, which is 7:00 to 8:00, 12:00 to 1:00, and 5:00 to 6:00, exceeds no more than 6% of the traffic already on the road. Those numbers are based on studies from the Institute of Traffic Engineers and their formulas, and that represents traffic entering our facility if it were a McDonald's. Of those numbers, during the same time periods, approximately 2 1/2% of the traffic on the road to as high as 2 3/4% of that traffic would actually be generated by a restaurant like McDonald's. The Institute of Traffic Engineers says that typically of the total traffic generated by the particular use of a fast-food restaurant, 45% is 13967 pass-by traffic. Fifty-five percent is new traffic. I just point out that a use such as a bank, the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicate 14% of their traffic is pass-by meaning 86% is actually generated by use or new traffic on the road. In overall, you are not talking about a large amount of traffic over a 24-hour period, and our operation would not be a 24-hour operation. With that I will be more than happy to come back and share with you additional information. I would also point out again the risk, Mr. Chairman, of overstepping the bounds of dealing with McDonald's as opposed to the use of that property from C-1 to C-2. I would point out we have a survey that we have done at our restaurant at Five Mile and Haggerty, and it shows basically where the people were coming from over a four-day period, interviewing 800 customers. We feel the restaurant just up the street is not large enough to do what we want to do in servicing these customers coming to that facility. Mr. Alanskas: Is the McDonald's at Five Mile and Haggerty going to continue to stay open? Mr. Racklyeft: We have not decided that yet. Mr. Alanskas: What is the average distance between other McDonald's? Mr. Racklyeft: Typical trade areas are based on time not miles. I would point out we have a restaurant at Six Mile and Haggerty, and we have one at Eight Mile and Haggerty. Mr. Alanskas: I am referring to the one at Five Mile and Haggerty. sow Mr. Racklyeft: The one at Five Mile and Haggerty vs. Six Mile and Haggerty is approximately a mile. The one at Six Mile and Haggerty to Eight Mile and Haggerty is approximately two miles. Mr. T.Pine: Mr. Racklyeft, you represent McDonald's. Is that correct? Mr. Racklyeft: Yes I do. Mr. T.Pine: At this time McDonald's does not own the property. Is that correct? Mr. Racklyeft: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: You are purchasing the property with the contingency that you get the rezoning. Is that correct? Mr. Racklyeft: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The other question I had was what was going to happen to the McDonald's at Five Mile and Haggerty. At this point you do not know what you are going to do? 13968 Mr. Racklyeft: That is correct. Mr. spine: Were you representing McDonald's when they were in here maybe two to three years ago when they wanted to put the restaurant in the other location at this area? Mr. Racklyeft: Yes I was. Mr. LaPine: You knew what the opposition was from the homeowners and the church at that time. What makes you believe that the situation has changed and that this is still a good location for a restaurant? Mr. Racklyeft: Number one, that particular location, as being a part of it extensively and many meetings with the church, etc. , one of the prime concerns that was conveyed to us by the leaders of the church was the fact that our building was going to block the visibility of their new church and we tried to indicate to them that was not going to be the case, and consequently the addition to that strip center has been built. Traffic was also a concern at that time. We did present a traffic study, and I have a copy with me, an independent study again, that showed the level of the service would not be affected by McDonald's. There was significant concern about traffic on Newburgh and the proximity from the drive to the church, and the church at that time was concerned about the children, etc. and people racing out of McDonald's, racing out of the church property, that type of thing. The Five Mile situation, the traffic is less on Five Mile overall than on Newburgh. Now- Mr. LaPine: If you were successful in developing this parcel for McDonald's, would this be their new motif where they have the children's play center? Mr. Racklyeft: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Racklyeft before you leave the podium I would just like to c1Par the record regarding what is a permitted use and what is not a permitted use in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Even though I understand your argument that you could view this as a local business venture which is covered by the C-1 zoning district. The C-1 zoning district also defines specific its that are permitted to take away any possible ambiguity there. Furthermore, restaurants are not a permitted use even in the C-2, which I am sure you are well aware of that. Because of the intensity of that use there is a necessity of a waiver use on top of a zoning change. I am sure you are aware of that. I just wanted to make every other interested party equally aware of that. If this zoning were successful, then there would be another step needed in order to proceed with a site plan there, and that would be a waiver use. If you have nothing else sir, we will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Without wanting to offend 13969 anyone we would ask that we not simply repeat everything that was written in the letters. Any new information we would be very interested in. We are interested in your point of view. We have no interest in limiting anything you say but for the sake of stew expediency, we heard the letters and we paid careful attention to that. Pauline Friend, 15180 Blue Skies: That is directly on the side of the public land. The thing that wasn't addressed is, I don't know if you people are familiar with that area but there are already eight fast-food places at that intersection, and I really don't think we need another one. Do you want me to give you the names or has anyone checked into that? Mr. Engebretson: I think we are aware of that but if you want to read the names into the record madam, you are certainly welcome to do that. Ms. Friend: We have Lorenzo's Pizza at 37464 Five Mile Road. We have Imperial Pizza at 15367 Newburgh Road. We have Dominos Pizza 37625 Five Mile Road. We have Linden Chinese at 37645 Five Mile Road. We have Pizza Hut at 37581 Five Mile Road. We have a Subway Shop at 37579 Five Mile Road, Mr. Muster's at 37665 Five Mile Road and Botegga's at 37620 Five Mile Road. Five of these out of the eight are right in that shopping center so I really think we don't need another one. In the summertime, with the tennis courts in that public land there, we are picking up trash all summer long, myself and my neighbors. We do it almost once a week, and if McDonald's goes in there, naturally the kids, or anybody who plays tennis there and goes over to McDonald's to get fast food, will leave their wrappers and their garbage there. Another thing, McDonald's said that they didn't know what they were going to do with that place on Five Mile Road. If they close that one, it will make much more traffic and more people will be coming to this one, which will double what they have now, according to what he said. I don't think we need that either. I hope you will give this very, very, good consideration because fast-food places are just like mushrooms. Albert Fadool, 14523 Newburgh Road: The City of Livonia has a zoning plan, and the plan was made to best accomodate the citizens of Livonia. Really what we have to ask ourselves here is what benefit are we going to give to the citizens by changing the zoning from C-1 to C-2? The benefit from this gentleman fioiu McDonald's, I don't know if that is a great benefit for us. It doesn't serve us any special needs. There are no special dietary needs. There are other restaurants in the area. I am not against McDonald's. I enjoy McDonalds but really what it comes to is what would be better at that site other than a bank? I don't know if the owners of the property have pursued other banks for that site. Having worked with banks and for banks for quite some time, one of the big assets is the vault. The vault that is at the bank is not an easy item to move and therefore a lot of banks do seek other 'to... 13970 banks to buy their branches when they sell, and there are other banks in the metropolitan area that do not have a presence in Livonia that may be interested in this site. Again, a benefit of pursuing another bank would be the Community Reinvestment Act, which, as we all know, when a bank is located in your community it is required to lend into that community, and the type of lending you have auto loans, home improvements loans, and things like that. The petition indicates a variety of more suitable businesses. Whose to say what is going to be the best there but certainly a bank would service the best way because without a bank being there we are not going to have any type of financial services competition. There is a lot of food competition at that corner right now. As far as increased traffic, when I was working at a bank if I had the same kind of people count that McDonald's did, I would have an excellent branch there. I don't think it would be a wise business decision for them to close the other McDonald's for the reasons that he stated there. They already have proof showing the site can support another restaurant because of where the people are coming from on the west side so I don't think that is going to be closed. Other than that, again, you just have to take a look at and say what is the benefit for the zoning change because on top of the zoning change there will be a waiver use as well. Let's not do that. I do live on Newburgh so if McDonald's wants to buy my house, I am at Newburgh and Levan. Bill Scheuber, 36536 Marler: I am a parishioner of St. Edith's Church as well as a parent of two students at St. Edith's school. I would like to speak against the rezoning, which is motivated by the desire to `"w put a McDonald's at that corner. A McDonald's in the proposed location serves as a magnet to attract people to engage in unsafe activities. I have three major concerns. First, the location of the property will significantly increase turns across traffic near a busy corner, which already has frequent accidents. Second, young children who are students at St. Edith's school will be attracted to the restaurant and will have to either walk across two busy parking lots or else one parking lot and next to a busy street. Finally, teenagers who are students at Ladywood High School, which is on the east side of Newburgh, will be attracted to the restaurant, and they will either walk along Newburgh Road where there is no sidewalk to get to the corner or alternatively, and I would say more likely, will cross Newburgh Road at Ladywood High School where there is no traffic light causing a very grave traffic danger in itself. I can say from my own personal experience, when I was high school in a similar location, I had a friend who was hit by a car doing exactly that activity and was out of school for ten weeks. McDonald's at the proposed location would result in all of the above, which invites serious accidents, and for this reason I urge you to deny this rezoning request. Steve Filipp, 15327 Huff: I wonder if McDonald's did a survey on property damage 13971 like they did on traffic? I know it is easy to juggle numbers on traffic but I know you will get a lot of teenagers, especially in the summer, that will be there late in the evening, possibly r..- after parties at friend's homes with a drink, and will be getting a little out of hand besides trashing homes, graffiti on homes in the area and existing buildings. Has McDonald's looked into that at all? Mr. Engebretson: We really don't know sir, and to be honest with you we are really stretching things quite a lot tonight. We are going way beyond the subject. Mr. Filipp: I recently moved into this area. One reason I did is it is a desirable area right now. Traffic on Five Mile after 6:30 p.m. dies down to almost like a side street. With a young child and another one at home I would hate to see more traffic at later hours, especially in the summer when both of my children may be outside playing. More accidents, they may get curious and want to wander over towards Five Mile near more traffic. For that reason I would hate to see McDonald's go in that area. Jim Crowley, 15108 Blue Skies: As you heard earlier Frank Hughes and Mary Hughes got over 300 signatures together to protest this zoning change. That represents only the houses that were actually notified under the time constraint we had to get signatures. I believe if you went beyond that and if we would have had more time, I think you would have found that there would be even more signatures. I think the zoning change is motivated only by big business and dollars, not serving the community. We feel served as it is right now by the several restaurants in the area. Also, our traffic is a main concern here. One thing that was not addressed, I live at Five Mile Road and the entrance from the mall on a weekly basis when I try to turn left on my street I am cut off by a car riding the middle lane from the shopping center because they are in a hurry to get out and don't want to wait for traffic to clear. As I said that is on a weekly basis. I would hate to see what would happen if they do put in a McDonald's. As the representative here stated, it will draw about 45% front traffic already on the street. Again, how many of those cars are making left turns? Again, most of those cars will be turning left. We also addressed St. Edith's concern two years ago of the driveway. He has stated it will now be on Five Mile. There is still a drive on Newburgh that will be serving the McDonald's. I don't know how that will change at this point. It is still a concern I feel with traffic. Another large concern, we have traffic speeding up and down our street, which serves the Castle Gardens community. With cars speeding up and down we feel we will have more and more traffic cutting through. When they go to McDonald's will they be going around the block so they don't have to make that left turn? I know I see the Hughes every morning with a trash bag in their hand picking up trash. Will they need to carry a dumpster now? We just don't feel it is serving the 13972 community well. Serving us, is leaving it the way it is, and keeping McDonald's where it is. Also, the aesthetics of a McDonald's', which is proposed with a play area. I have nothing against McDonald's but they tend to get in with one proposal and law keep moving up through phases. We see one phase where they build a beautiful facade like the one on Six Mile. They did a very nice job planning that. However, I also see other McDonald's from the residential type of brick painted in fluorescent colors, two-story play areas built. The final phase is when they burn that property out like the one perhaps they burned out down the street. They just board it up. As a matter of fact, I have photographs that I could not get developed tonight of that same type of property on Orchard Lake Road that is boarded up at this point because they built a fluorescent one down the street. How long will that sit boarded up? This is another concern. This is about big business and dollars and not serving the community. I think you have heard from the community and what we want and what we want is the land to stay zoned the way it is with no more restaurants. Frank Hughes, 15156 Blue Skies: My back yard is right at the tennis courts. We were told two years ago that they were losing their lease on the McDonald's at Five Mile Road. They haven't lost the lease. They built a place at Six Mile and Haggerty. I don't know haw long we have to keep on hearing they are going to close something. I have a grandson that got hit by a car, and that was when we was four years old. He is about eight years old now and he still isn't back to normal. I don't want to see that happen to any of our kids in our neighborhood. I don't have any that live around v..r here but they do visit and I do see a lot of kids as we walk around the neighborhood that, especially now with spring coming, that they will go after the balls and stuff like that. With this McDonald's coming in we know there is going to be an increase in the traffic in our subdivision. Right now the traffic is bad enough and this will just accentuate it. Walking, we can hardly get by some of the trucks at the gas station now because they are blocking the walkways and trying to get out before we get to them. They are coming in and out of the parking lot to go to their shop. another thing, it is going to be a hangout for young ones. I would say I don't blame them because it is going to be a place that will be open until probably 11:00 p.m. and that is going to put a lot of traffic that time of night for all of us. With the summer coming, I don't want that on my conscience. George Boller, 36270 Hammer: I am a freeholder in Livonia and a member of St. Edith's parish. I think it would be helpful to start off with some historical perspective. The matter of locating a McDonald's in the vicinity of Five Mile and Newburgh is not new. The issue was raised several years ago in connection with a rezoning petition for property immediately contiguous to the north of the property line of St. Edith's Church. At that time a number of concerns were expressed and if the Planning Commission will look at that file, it will find a record of those concerns which were 13973 expressed, and to members of the Commission, such as yourself, who were on the Commission at that time, I am sure you will be familiar with those. To the new members who may not be familiar, \.. The would respectfully ask that they consult that earlier file. The present petition on the agenda states that it is a petition by Thomas Racklyeft representing McDonald's Corporation. I would like to inquire, and I think it would be appropriate for the Commission to inquire, if Mr. Racklyeft is, in fact, an employee of McDonald's Corporation. I would also ask the Commission respectfully to inquire if there are any additional petitioners on the petition besides Mr. Racklyeft. I believe that if the Commission makes the examination of the petition, it will find that there is an additional petitioner besides Mr. Racklyeft. I believe that that additional petitioner is the actual owner of the property that is the subject of this rezoning petition. That being the case, the agenda is not accurate. It is incomplete because in fact it is a petition not by Mr. Racklyeft but by Mr. Racklyeft and another person, and to the extent that this agenda constitutes a notice to the public, I believe that it is non-compliant because it does not identify all the petitioners. Getting back to the matter of past history, may I please approach the map. The north property line of St. Edith's Parish, which includes Villa Marie, extends from Newburgh Road westerly across to the back property line of lots that face on Blue Skies. In the prior petition in previous years it was approximately this parcel (he pointed it out on map) which would be approximately property that is defined by a rectangular area whose east boundary is Newburgh Road, whose south boundary is a portion of the St. Edith property line extending westerly from Newburgh Road, thence northwardly to a location approximately to the southwest corner of the parcel that is the subject of the present petition, and thence easterly back to Newburgh Road. For historical purposes, the portion of the shopping center that is shown within the rectangular area that I have just defined was not in existence at the time of the earlier petition. When that earlier petition was denied, the file will speak for itself. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Boller, what I really want to know is what is your point here because we are intimately aware of the history of the previous petition, the layout of the site, etc. We certainly don't want to infringe on your first amendment rights. We know you are an attorney. We know you are thorough and we appreciate that but we have an extremely long agenda tonight and if we could stick to pertinent issues, I think we would be most appreciative. As far as history is concerned, the record is complete on that issue. Mr. Boller: The record on the previous issue certainly reflects past history, I agree to that as long as you will stipulate that the record of that past petition will be considered in connection with the present petition, then I will have no reason for further discussion on that point. 13974 Mr. Engebretson: We request that that be done. I don't know if it is appropriate or not but we will request that it be done. Mr. Boller: If it is not, then I reserve the right to renew. The point is 'v"" that this parcel was immediately contiguous to St. Edith's property. That was a serious concern for reasons of record in that prior petition and the public hearing and comments thereon. Now we have a different parcel and the portrayal of that parcel, I don't want to say it is inaccurate. It is incomplete because the portrayal does not show the traffic flow patterns as they presently exist. Mr. Engebretson: The only thing Mr. Boller, that is not the issue tonight. We have spent a lot of time talking about the site and the user, but the fact of the matter is if this zoning occurred, as an attorney you well know, McDonald's could drop this plan, they could sell that property to anyone else, and any permitted use whether it is a veterinary clinic or whatever, could come in there, so we really can't get too focused on the use because it may or may not happen. Mr. Boller: If I may respectfully disagree with you, I believe it has been established that McDonald's is not the owner of this property. Mr. Engebretson: We haven't established that Mr. Boller. Mr. Boller: Let's ask the petitioner. Isn't the petitioner here? Mr. Engebretson: I am going to run this meeting, not you. I, in due course, will Nair make the proper inquiry. I want you to make whatever points you have relative to new information and then move on. We are going to be here until three o'clock this morning, and frankly I am not prepared to do that. This is the first item on the agenda so it is no strain on you to take two to three hours here reviewing history, etc. but there are a lot of other people that have come here, some with small children, and I am sure they are interested in getting on with other business in a reasonably orderly fashion. Mr. Boller: Mr. Chairman, may we please ask how many additional people wish to speak in connection with this petition? Mr. Engebretson: George, this is my last request. I am going to ask you to make whatever comments are appropriate representing your point of view relative to this zoning request, and I don't want you to make any further attempts to control this meeting. Mr. Boller: Mr. Engebretson, you are the Chairman, you have total control over this meeting. I am simply exercising my right as a public citizen, resident of Livonia, member of St. Edith parish, to present our views at this public hearing. There is no stipulation as to time limit nor content as long as the statements which I have made are informational to the Commission. 13975 Mr. Engebretson: Then make them with respect to the petition at hand, and that is the zoning petition. klow Mr. Boller: That is absolutely correct, and the past history is very relevant to this particular petition. Mr. Engebretson: It is a matter of record and we are all familiar with it. Mr. Boller: Don't say that we are all familiar with it because I believe there are members of this Commission that were not present at the time of the decision on that prior petition. Am I correct? Mr. Engehretson: That is correct but they have been made aware of some of the history, not all of it, but if they have an inclination to do so, they can read the file. There is no obligation for them to read the file. George, I thought we were friends. We have known each other a long time. I have no interest in arguing with you. I certainly don't want to have a confrontation with you, but we want to give you every opportunity to address any issues you wish to relative to the zoning issue but the restrictions that I respectfully ask you to accept, I think are reasonable, and with that I will return the podium to you and let you make whatever comments you wish. Mr. Boller: What restrictions are you imposing on me? Mr. Engebretson: We want to address the issue of zoning, and if you have concerns about the zoning, please make them a part of the record. Mr. Boller: Is not thet history ry of a parcel and the contiguous area relevant to a present zoning petition? Mr. McCann: I think what we have C-1, C-2 zoning. Past history sat on its merits. We should look tonight to see haw this will impact the neighborhood as well as impact the citizens and haw it is the best for the development of this City. I don't think you can look back at what happened two years, three years ago and make a major determination from that. We are here tonight to determine whether this is the best use for the citizens of Livonia and if the future land use plan is to change this from C-1 to C-2. We have had a lot of comments. I should say the one thing we have been very careful about in these meetings is always trying to get new comments and additional comments because we do have 11 agenda items on this evening. Each person has an opportunity to bring new sightful information which has not been brought up before. We have 300 names out here. We are very aware of every person's position in this audience tonight. I think it is very clear from the comments tonight where they are coming from, what their concerns are as far as traffic, as far as the type of activity being involved there, and whether they want expansion from C-i to C-2. I was on the Planning Commission, as I know at least three of the other members were as well, at that time, but I don't see 13976 how that is relative. I am looking at it today, is C-2 an expansion of the commercial use in that area appropriate today? I think we have been well served by the audience tonight and the ti.. letters and the petitions as to what their feelings are. Mr. Boller: Thank you very much Vice Chairman McCann. I really appreciate those comments and I will close my remarks. May I have approximately five minutes Mr. Engebretson? Mr. Engebretson: Would you please have respect for the people in the audience and confine your closing remarks to new pertinent information. Mr. Boller: This portrayal, as I said before, was incomplete. There is no driveway access here along Newburgh Road to this parcel. Neither is there driveway access by directionally flout Five Mile into this parcel. I am also not aware that the existing tenant of this parcel, which I believe is Comerica Bank, is going to close that facility. If there is an expression that they intend to close that facility, I am not aware of it. In changing zoning from a C-1 to a C-2 use there are many other types of facilities other than McDonald's restaurants that can be placed upon that parcel, and those would be of record in the prior petition which I refer to of several years ago, which sought to do the same for this area here. With that let me go back to the podium and conclude. I would like to point out the reference that has been made to several other McDonald's in the vicinity which does not involve the City of Livonia. Those McDonald's are located outside of the City of Livonia. At the time of the prior '..w petition it was threatened that the facility at Five Mile and Haggerty, which in fact is not at Five Mile and Haggerty but is on Five Mile Road between I-275 and Haggerty, was going to be closed if that earlier petition were granted. Instead, what happened the McDonald's in Northville Township at Six Mile and Haggerty, and once again not exactly at Six Mile and Haggerty but on Six Mile, was built when this earlier petition was denied so I question the motives of McDonald's in connection with requesting this present petition. I will not repeat the concerns about traffic. Father Scheick, who is the pastor of St. Edith's, has continued to express those concerns to me. I have a fax from him, which I will not make of record, but it states that the Pastoral Council of St. Ediths has expressed concerns about traffic problems and overflow problems for the school and the church. I would also point out that the incorporation of a children's play center, as Mr. Racklyeft stated would be in the plan for this particular McDonald's, is something that may not be appropriate to this particular area. This is an enticement for small children not yet of self discernment who will be attracted to a nuisance, witness Major Magic. Major Magic, in my judgment, is a disgrace to Livonia. There are a number of vacancies in the existing mall. May I just ask that the petition be denied. 13977 Francis Papke, 37450 N. Laurel Park: I don't live in the immediate vicinity. I moved my family in here over 50 years ago. I object to the change in zoning as requested. It appears that the zoning Now request is by a large franchisee. In a recent issue of Research Recommendations that goes to business people every other week telling you what to look out for in this world, both from employccs and government and large corporations that sell franchises, it appears that franchises are successful. Why it has that appearance is that they sell this place over and over to other business people expecting to make a substantial income. A better use for this area would be a credit union. Lord knows we do need a good credit union so we can share the wealth of Livonia. The bank, as I understand it, east of Newburgh Road has done the expansion to unload this property, and we should continue the same type of use if at all possible, but most certainly not as a C-2. Mr. Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify on that petition that we got over 300 some votes. We didn't run out of people. We just ran out of time. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, relative to the question raised by Mr. Boller, in an effort to do a thorough job here, we would ask you to clarify the matter of the names on the petition. Mr. Shane: Mr. Racklyeft is the actual petitioner. There is another gentleman who is the property owner, and since Mr. Racklyeft and McDonald's do not own the property, it requires the property `w owner's signature in order to file the petition. Mr. Engebretson: Most well-informed attorneys would know that. I would like to ask Mr. Racklyeft, if you care to answer, are you employed by McDonald's? Mr. Racklyeft: I have been employed by McDonald's for 21 years. In fact, I started right out of high school. Al Tuller, 34713 Northland: I was watching this on television and I had to come down. I am a member of the National Restaurant Association for 34 years. I am a member of the Michigan Restaurant Association. I am furious. Can I ask this gentleman a question. Is this an MMOA? Mr. Engebretson: What does that stand for? Mr. Taller: Michigan McDonald's Operators. It pertains to the business of an owner/operator owning this versus an actual corporate because the corporation owns the store at Six and Haggerty. The one at Seven Mile and Farmington is an owner/operator. The owner/operators are trying to get more into an area based on population growth. I know McDonald's inside and out. I see how they work every day. I can tell you owners/operators throughout the whole state of 13978 Michigan and seven states, including Florida. I see this every day. When you go on population growth the first thing that happens is that the people that live in that area are drenched "40/.• with an abundance of problem based on total population of cars. In all honesty, you don't allow McDonald's big corporation to run Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: If you were listening sir to television tonight, you are aware that the issue here tonight is a zoning change request. McDonald's happens to be the signatory to the zoning request. As you may also have heard, this zoning request is going to be taken under advisement not necessarily even with the assumption that McDonald's is going to be there because they may or may not be. It appears that they will be but the point is there are no guarantees that they will, but our mission here tonight is to deal with the zoning change. If the zoning change is successful, then there will be a waiver use to see if it is appropriate to upgrade the intensity of that usia to that of a restaurant, and at that time the questions you raised would be most appropriate. Mr. Taller: I look to you Jack, and I don't know you very well, but I think you work for the City and for the people. It is time we stop doing things like this and we stop letting big organizations come in and rezone our property and make it into a dictatorial thing where we have no say. It is time that we have some say. It is the wrong area to put that. It is the wrong area because the only reason they want it there is they want to get it away from the Farmington one and they want to get it away from the Haggerty and Six Mile one because it is killing them. I came all the way out here because I am so upset that the City of Livonia is rezoning everything in sight. When is it going to stop? Mr. Engebretson: I just want to make this point and then we will close the public hearing. Any petitioner, including anyone in this room, has the right to come to the City to ask to be heard. Now it doesn't mean they are going to get it, and frequently they don't. Sometimes they do but that doesn't mean they have any kind of control or grip over the City. They are not being dictatorial. We have heard from more than 350 people represented by petitions, letters and comments tonight solidly opposed. I think we understand haw the neighborhood feels, and if I sounded harsh with either of the two gentlemen who were a little excited, I hope that I didn't offend anyone but we have to stand in control. We are going to be here at this rate until six o'clock in the morning. Unfortunately, some of the people are here on very important issues that are deep down in the agenda. I will give Mr. Racklyeft a last chance to speak. Mr. Racklyeft: I think in closing and in fairness to the audience and this body, again I would emphasize that this board, despite the petitions, is looking at it from a land use standpoint and not from a r.. 13979 McDonald's. In spite of the fact that we had to label the sign as McDonald's inviting that, if another individual property owner had asked for this rezoning, I would question in my mind what the Now,, response would have been here. The ideal forum, in my view from a company standpoint, is through the other process. If this were to be approved, through the waiver use process. I believe that is why it is there. Finally, in summing up accidents, etc. , there is public information. I have it here with me and I have two-year studies on our restaurants from your Police Department as it pertains to accidents and all fashions of crime. In that two-year period in all our restaurants, the most number of accidents is ten accidents and the Police Department often times will assign the address of that property if the accident happened out in front, no cause of the restaurant. (He presented this information to the department for their file) Mr. Alanskas: I would like the audience to know that I hope you realize that this board here does extensive studies and surveys before these petitions come to a public hearing and we really do a job, and we are here tonight on zoning and on that I would like to make a denying resolution. Mr. Ehgebretson, chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #3-46-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the Nolo. City Planning Commission on March 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-1-4 by Thomas Racklyeft representing McDonald's Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-1-4 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are not needed to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent C-1 and nearby residential zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is not required for the existing building on the subject site to continue to be utilized. 4) That the existing C-1 zoning district provides for a variety of uses which are compatible to the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. ti„„ 13980 Mr. McCann: I would like to let the audience know the reasons I am going to vote for a denying resolution on this. I understand where the audience is coming from. My personal point of view is it is C-1 Nifty zoning now. I grew up in this area and am very, very familiar with it. It is actually coming down to an expansion of the C-1 in this particular area, and I think the City has to look at it as an expansion of C-1. This area is sufficiently well served by C-2. This is a mostly residential area. I think the community would like to keep it mostly residential. The area has been well served by restaurants, that's true, but it is even simpler than that. Before you get to whether you want a waiver use approval for a restaurant as the gentleman from McDonald's said, it comes down to the basic question we have to answer tonight, and that is do we want to expand from C-1 to C-2 and is there a need for that type of C-2 services in the area. I believe it is well served and therefore would recommend a denying motion. Mr. LaPine: I would like to say that I think you did an outstanding job of controlling this meeting this evening. To the ladies and gentlemen in the audience, we are just appointed people. We are just ordinary citizens like you. We could be out there and you could be up here. All we ask you to do is understand we are trying to get all the facts, listen to everybody's point of view without everybody saying the same thing over and over again. Then we make our decision based on what we believe is in the best interest of number one, the City of Livonia, and number two, your area. I, for one, have been opposed to this rezoning even when the first one came in. The Chairman and I were out at this area `�.. the other day. We don't need any more C-2 in that area. We are well served by C-2, but I would also like to say something at this time about McDonald's. The people are all opposed to McDonald's. McDonald's, in my opinion, is a very good corporate citizen of Livonia. I defy anyone to go to any McDonald's in the City of Livonia where they don't keep up the property. They have fine landscaping. They keep their property clean. Once somebody buys food from McDonald's or any fast food, you can't blame the operator of that operation for what happens when they leave there. Basically, McDonald's does a good job. In the right area they would be an asset to this town. I don't think we should knock McDonald's. I think they do a good job. I honestly believe there is a building on this location that is a good, strong building and should be used for some other use and I don't think the use would be a restaurant. Therefore, I will support the motion. Mr. Piercecchi: I share the objections and concerns of the board and of the citizens that are here tonight, and I am going to vote to deny and I will call for a question on the motion. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13981 Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-9 by Sparky's Operations, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to provide food service in conjunction with a proposed family ,41111. entertainment center located north of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Finally, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating this proposal will not change the parking requirements that currently exist nor will it create any additional deficiencies to the site. Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to the petitioner, I would like to ask you to comment briefly as to what the difference is between this proposed entertainment center and the recently approved entertainment center with video games, etc. within the Livonia Mall. This one is here because of food service. Is it the type of games? Is it the nature of the activity that causes the waiver use? If they weren't asking for the food service would this be a permitted use? Mr. Shane: Yes it is the food service that causes this to require a waiver use approval. Mr. Engebretson: Why is this different than the one that came through here a year ago or so? Mr. Shane: That don't have food service in connection with it. Mr. Engebretson: Why did they have to come here? Mr. Shane: Because that is strictly a video game arcade, and arcades such as that require waiver use approval. It is simply an arcade with no other ancillary uses connected with it. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Jamal John Hamood, President of Sparky's Operations, Inc. 2701 Troy Center Dr. , Troy: I have with me my wife, Charlene. If you will bear with me I am going to make a presentation today that is a little unusual. The reason for that is I think it is important to demonstrate to you why our concept, I believe, is such a unique concept, and a concept that I think is going to revolutionize and redefine the family entertainment industry. First of all, our family entertainment center is embodied in the spirit of two costume characters, who are known as Sparky and Sparkles. Sparky's is a 13982 concept that we want to bring to Livonia Mall and we want to bring it into the former Children's Palace site, which is approximately 36,000 square feet, and in that area we plan to `.. incorporate a lot of things that you don't normally find in a family entertainment center. To address your question Mr. Chairman with respect to the difference between our center and the existing video arcade that is in the Livonia Mall, their center as indicated by the planner is strictly a video arcade and in a much smaller space and the machines are much closer together. Our center will be known as Sparky's Palace and Playland. As I indicated we will be a 36,000 square foot facility in which we plan to incorporate a lot of things. This chart will provide you with an indication of what we have at our facility. (He displayed a chart) When somebody comes to our center, the first thing they will do upon entering the center is they will encounter a large castle-type structure in the middle of the center. That will be a structure that will be 24'x24' and 24' high. It will be an outstanding structure. That will be an awe inspiring scene for little children. The structure will be of a unit that is known as soft clay and you will find it for example in Leaps & Bounds. You will find it now in some Chuck E Cheese's Restaurants. It is a play environment that is becoming indispensable to family entertainment centers now. We are going to take this structure and give it a little twist. Around the structure we are going to put in a facade that will make it look like a castle. Then you will have Sparky's Palace in Playland. Around the palace we will have a moat, which is a little stream of water, sort of like a fountain. That little stream of water \ft, will have moving water in it, and in the moving water we are going to place these little boats that you see. Children will be able to sit inside the Sparky boats and go around the moat and enjoy a ride around the castle. While they do that they will have a lot of animated figures that they will be able to watch sort of like the Small World ride in Disney World. Additionally, we are going to have a train for the little children to ride, and again that train is going to be made up to look like our costumed character. It is going to be a dragon train. It will seat approximately four to five children per train. In addition to the train, we will have a maze type structure that will allow the children to run through the maze and encounter different scenes within the maze. As they encounter the scenes they will be able to shoot at the scenes wearing a power glove. Again, we are being sensitive to the concern these days for not having children shoot at each other and shoot at things using guns. Instead they will be wearing a power glove and the power glove will emit a laser beam at the target. When they hit the target they will get points for redemption tickets towards prizes. Mr. Piercecchi: Will there be a charge to enter this facility? Mr. Hamood: Yes there will be. The charge to enter the facility is going to be approximately $5.00 for an admission type thing. Then there will be another charge for one price plays all. Additionally, you will see colored rooms. Each will be a separate birthday 13983 party room because we cater heavily to small children coming in for birthday parties. Each party that comes in with ten or more children can take one of these rooms for free. It will be glass ,,,` enclosed across the front so that the parties can enjoy some peace and quiet from the balance of the environment. Parents can also use that area to stay and relax while they watch their children. Another feature that we have is called a chariot racer. What these will be are little vehicles that look like chariots. They will be drawn by little mechanical ponies. The speed on these things will be similar to the speed you will see on the little battery operated trucks that you can buy from Toys R Us. They will be very small for children ages three to eight. We will have some video games. They are actually redemption games. They are not the type of games intended to attract older children. What we are going to do with these games is to allow the parents to interact with their children in some meaningful play. While I think it is great for the children to go around the moat in the little Sparky boat, and ride around on a train and race the chariots, doing those activities don't give the parents an opportunity to interact with the children. When we have the redemption games the parents actually play those with the children. Apparently the ordinance will permit us to do up to approximately 60 machines, I believe, based on the square footage without seeking a waiver. We will be way under that number. We don't intend to get near that number. We want to have enough to give access to everybody that is going to come to the birthday parties. In the same time we don't want to overdo it because we don't want to attract children who aren't coming in with families. That is everything we plan to offer. We will have a stage here with a recording type of thing. We plan to put a throne at one end and seating around the throne. We will have video cameras at the other end. When the birthday parties come in, the birthday child can sit on the throne. There will be a video tape and the children can take the video tape home with them to enjoy. That pretty much summarizes everything we intend to offer. We will then address the food issue, which is why we are here. We want to provide some basic foods such as pizza, because that works well for birthday parties, and we want to address the concerns of parents who bring their children and they don't necessarily like pizza. We will be offering some gourmet style pizza. We will also offer stuffed baked potatoes. We will offer some gourmet sandwiches attempting to satisfy the parents and hot dogs for the children. It will be a very limited menu, not a full service restaurant and basically popcorn or ice cream, things of that nature. Mr. Piercecchi: That was an excellent presentation. Do you have any other facilities such as this in the area? Mr. Hamood: No, this will be the first. We are in the process of looking to open three by the end of the year, and we are working with a couple of other cities, one is the City of Warren and one in the 13984 City of Farmington Hills. We would like to do three. One of the major concerns was it was sort of an unwritten promise that the Livonia Mall asked that we open our first in Livonia so we would Now like to do that. Mr. Piercecchi: H, is this facility, without the restaurant, permitted in the C-2? Mr. Shane: Yes it is. It is only the food service that causes it to require a waiver use. Mr. LaPine: I have a number of questions. Number one, are the parents with the children the whole time or do the parents drop the kids off and take off? Mr. Hamood: Actually one of the services we might do is our latch key program. From 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day on weekdays, which are the days that would be a little slow anyway, we are going to offer a latch key service for parents that can register their children. We will have a company called Kids Cab go out to the schools and pick up the children, bring them into the facility, and we will give them a supervised homework period for about one hour and then they will be permitted for the balance of their two-hour stay to play on all the rides and enjoy their time. In order to do that we have to meet some strict requirements through the state as to number of children, supervisors, etc. Having met that requirement we can also offer a service to the mall. We will then be able to allow children to `law be dropped off there while their parents do some shopping and then come back and pick them up. What we will do when the children come in, we will do this with all children that come in not just the ones that are dropped off, we will give them a little bracelet that will have an identifying number on it. The parents will have the corresponding number on that bracelet, and the entrances and exits are very carefully monitored. Nobody will be allowed to leave without having a parent with their corresponding number. Mr. rapine: I am glad you told me that. That was one of the concerns I had. If a parent drops their child off, there could be some type of litigation or if they are separated and some other parent comes in there and they see the other parent and they take off with the child and they are not supposed to have the child, but you do have this bracelet operation so they do have to match the bracelet. If they don't have the bracelet, they can't leave. Is that correct? Mr. Hamood: Yes that is correct. Mr. rapine: The second question I have asked. $5.00 is what you said it cost to get in. What do they get for the $5.00? I have another part to that same question. When they go to all these video games, I assume they use coins. Does that $5.00 include coins to use the 13985 machines? Give me a an idea of what it is going to cost a child to go in there? How much money are we talking about spending? The third question, what are these video games? Can you tell me Ni.,. what the games are? I was told about some of the games that are in the video room that is there now that were not supposed to be violent, and I was over there Saturday and looked at them, and my conception of what is non violent and somebody's else conception is totally different. Some of these games were out in no-man's land as far as I am concerned but I assume these are not going to be those kinds of games because you are supposedly dealing with three year olds up to what age? Mr. Hamood: Three up to twelve year olds maximum. Really the main function of the games here is to satisfy the three to eight year old bracket. When I say three to twelve it is because a lot of times parents will have a six or seven year old and they also will have a child as old as twelve. We would like to have whole families come in for birthday parties, for example, and have something for kids up to twelve so we are not going to have games that are totally pre-school games. We do want some games that will appeal to children up to the age of twelve. For example, one of the games we are going to have is called the Super Shovel. The Super Shovel looks like a tractor. The base itself does not move but you do have a shovel arm that moves just like the big shovels that they have out in fields. We are going to have baseballs that they will scoop up and move them into another bin. We intend to have games. I mentioned the Junior Basketball Toss, Ski Ball, Whack-O. We also have a large version of the Hungry, `t` Hungry Hippo. It is a home game like the children have. It is a pond type thing where a hippopotamus goes out and scoops up the ball. The arcade version of that is a much larger machine. Mr. TaPine: $5.00 gets them in the door. From that point on everything else is additional? Mr. Hamood: The Castle Climber will be free. If you are familiar with Leaps and Bounds, for example, that is all that is offered there. They will pay $6.00 at Leaps and Bounds and all you will have to do inside one of their facilities is the Tubes and Tunnels. You get to climb through the tubes and tunnels. You will get that for free. Mr. TaPine: Everything else takes coins? Mr. Hamood: Everything else takes coins. The rides do not take coins. They will take a $1.00 token. For a $5.00 admission fee we will give three of those tokens. So for the $5.00 you will have the Castle Climber and you will have three rides. You have to use the tokens on the rides as opposed to the video games. The reason we want to do that is to discourage children from coming in and paying $5.00 and asking for $5.00 worth of tokens for video 13986 games. The extent of operations is not to bring that type of element in. The reason for that is when we are catering to birthday parties with families and small children, they don't �.. want those children standing around. They don't want them intimidated by older kids that may scare them off. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say with some of these games when they get so many points then they get free tokens? Mr. Hamood: No, they will get little tickets. That is becoming a popular thing with the little children. Then they take the tickets and they will receive prizes based on the number of tickets they have. Mr. LaPine: Similar to Chuck E Cheese's and Major Magic? Mr. Hamood: Exactly. Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. rapine pretty much asked my questions. I still am a little bit concerned about the games and the violence. The games at the other arcade were not supposed to be violent and they are pretty violent. Mr. Hamood: I don't want to compete with the one next door. The children are going to go there and not pay $5.00 to go to our place. I don't mean to bring in machines that are going to attract that type of element because children are not going to pay $5.00 to get in to play those games. At our place they will play more family entertainment type games. Mrs. Blomberg: You were mentioning a glove that shoots at something. What is the target? Mr. Hamood: The target will be little animated figures with a medieval theme. Mrs. Blomberg: I was concerned with security which has already been taken care of. Mr. Alanskas: You would be open seven days a week? Mr. Hamood: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Hamood: It would not be any longer than the mall's hours. I still want to talk to the mall to see if we could shorten our hours of operation. The early morning hours won't necessarily help us. They will not be any longer than the hours of the mall. Mr. Alanskas: What kind of beverages would you have? Mr. Hamood: Just soft drinks. 13987 Mr. Alanskas: Just soft drinks. No beer or wine? Mr. Hamood: No sir. Mr. Alanskas: When I say violent games, I have a seven year old grandson. He has been to all of them. He is only seven but he runs to these games where they shoot people, cut their necks off, blood is flying, etc. I think this is the kind of concern we have. If you have those kind of games it will be young people, like seven year olds. They are going to play those games. I think that is very important that we ask you what kind of violent games? Mr. Hamood: We really won't. The distinction is video games versus redemption games. Redemption games are games of chance or skill. Our games are going to be predominately redemption games, 80% to 90% redemption games. Very few video games at all. We will have some. The video games that we intend to have would be games like Indy Racers, etc. Mr. Alanskas: Basically not violent games. Mr. Hamood: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: Your biggest days would be Saturdays and Sundays? Mr. Hamood: Absolutely. Mr. Piercecchi: I asked initially if there was this type of operation under your control. Is there any such facility any place? Mr. Hamood: We don't believe that there is. We believe that this setup is a very unique setup. The games that we developed here, the Chariot Race for example, the Power Glove, the Laser Maze, the Dragon Train, the Sparky Boat are all rides that were actually custom made. In fact, they were designed by us for our use. Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I asked that question, you are really getting almost nothing for $5.00. I can't imagine people that have three to four children dropping $20.00 just to get in and get a couple of rides around the moat. I can't imagine you could survive. Mr. Hamood: Actually you will find that the most popular family entertainment center concepts right now are Discovery Zone and Leaps and Bounds. Those are the two that are growing the fastest. All they offer is this for $6.00. Mr. Piercecchi: Where are they located? Mr. Hamood: The Discovery Zone is located throughout the area. Mr. McCann: Mr. Piercecchi, we have one at Plymouth and Middlebelt next to Sports Authority. 13988 Mr. Piercecchi: As you can see sir a couple of Commissioners here have stated their concern about the type of video games that are going to be involved because apparently they got stung once and they don't v., want it to happen again. What kind of guarantee can you give that you won't have any games with a tremendous amount of violence and things of that nature. Mr. Hamood: I suppose I could provide a list of games. Mr. Piercecchi: I think that is not a bad idea. Mr. Hamood: The problem is, while I can assure you of the games we would put in initially, you have to turn over games periodically. I don't want to have to come back and say now we want to take out this game and put in this game. I think your best assurance that I am not going to put in violent games is the fact we are working as hard as we can to set up a concept here that we believe is geared towards younger children and necessitates us not having older children coming in to hang out. The violent games are the kind of games while the seven year old may want to play a violent game if it is there, the violent game is not going to bring in the seven year old. The violent games will bring in the older children and that is what we want to avoid. I think your best guarantee that you won't find those kinds of games at our facility is the overall concept that we are developing, and with that in mind, it is almost like asking you to trust me without you not knowing me, but I think the concept is a good guarantee. �.. Mr. Piercecchi: Other people just walking in to play those games, I think your greatest deterrent is the $5.00. Mr. Hamood: Absolutely, except if they were violent enough, you could break through the barrier with some of the older kids if you put in gory enough games but we are not going to do that. Mr. Engebretson: You mentioned trust as the criteria. About the only criteria that we can use here to make a determination and have some assurance that you are a man of honor, I want to tell you that I am impressed with your presentation, other than your Splatter Rat game. My only concern is the type of video games that you intend to have in there. Ms. Hildebrandt is sitting in the audience, and she sat here a year ago and she heard her other tenant come in here and tell us that they were going to have: Virtual Racing, Gallaga, Tournament NBA Jam, Air Hockey, Centipede, Ms. Pacman, Snow Brothers, Hoop Basketball, Pinballs, Clay Shoot, Speed Buggy, Price Crane, Road Blaster, Off Road Racer, Race Driving, Camcom Bowling, Chase HQ, Simpsons, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Tetris, and Speed Buggy. Here is what they have: Terminator; Lethel Enforcers, which they specifically said they wouldn't have; Butter Toads, which is heavy duty violent; Assault, speaks for itself; Dark Stalker, nice game, also 13989 includes scantily dressed images that that may be inappropriate for other reasons; Primal Rage; Killer Instinct; Mortal Combat, also on the record we were assured that game would not be ti.. included, it is; finally Virtual Fighter II, which is another really neat game. If this were a monarchy, I would revoke their approval tomorrow if that were possible. Jeanne Hildebrandt: Please be advised Commissioners that I would like to step in at this point. Jeanne Hildebrandt did not let the Planning Commission down. Our law firm has been brought into the matter and is in it now. There are nine games in there that I will not allow that I saw last Thursday and Friday. Our law firm has been brought into it and I am not going to put up with it. Mr. Engebretson: First of all let me make it clear that I wasn't holding you accountable for that. I was simply giving your potential lessee here credibility that you heard this and that you would be able to verify that this is not some kind of a fantasy that I am having. Ms. Hildebrandt: I feel I am accountable to my customers and to the City. I am not going to put up with that. Our law firm is on it now. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you. You actually were looked to as the leveling force and we felt that you held similar beliefs as we did, and I think I also listed nine games and they are probably the same ones. Ms. Hildebrandt: They are the nine games I was upset about I am sure, but I am not r,,,,, going to tolerate it. Mr. Engebretson: With that in mind, I am not going to ask for any kind of an initiation of something here within the City hierarchy to see what we can do with anything. I will leave it in your good hands. Your interest is as great as ours, and maybe greater. We do trust you. Mr. Hamood: I would be more than happy to abide by any restrictions you want to put on video games. If you would define what it is you consider a violent game. I would be happy to exclude the games. Mr. Engebretson: It is not fair to do that to you sir. I think you are on the record as making a commitment that you will not put in violent games and I would think that Ms. Hildebrandt would probably, I think most assuredly, deal with you in the same exact fashion as she did in this other matter. Mr. Hamood: In the short time I have come to know Ms. Hildebrandt I certainly don't want to cause her any trouble. Mr. Engebretson: We have known her a lot longer than you have, and we know she is an honorable person, and we know that Livonia Mall is a very 13990 important part of this community, that she has been instrumental in building, and I can't imagine that she is going to let it run down, and I was glad she was a little angry when she got up at that podium because that certainly makes me feel comfortable and I am going to leave it in her hands. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? George Boller, 36270 Hammer: I had not intended to speak on this petition but certain remarks from the President of this Commission have caused me to come forward and speak. I am very glad that this Commission is not a monarchy Mr. Engebretson because what you are doing is exercising a form of censorship over free speech by attempting to restrict the nature of games that will be provided at this facility. In my judgment that is totally unconstitutional and not within the authority of this Commission. Secondly, I object to the fact that in my comments on the first hearing item, you attempted to restrict my time because my comments were not being directed to the issue. In this petition, as I understand it and I may be wrong, but the petition only concerns a waiver use to provide food service at this facility. It is my understanding that a family entertainment center is a permitted use. I fail to understand why this Commission, if it is so concerned with the preciousness of everyone's time, both as Commission members and the audience, have been directed to the nature of the entertainment games that may be in place at this facility, if, in fact, the only issue of concern is whether or not food can be served in conjunction with this facility. If I am wrong, please correct me right now. Mr. Engebretson: It is as relevant as the history of years past on other petitions. Mr. TaPine: Mr. Chairman, let him state his objections and what he wants to say. Mr. Boller: Let me say Mr. Tapine, you are the one that brought up this matter of the content of the games that were going to be offered at this facility, and, if in fact, the issue is simply whether or not food service is to be permitted as a waiver use, any discussion of the nature of the games that may be in place at this facility is totally irrelevant to the petition apart from the unconstitutional aspects which I believe apply in this situation. Mr. LaPine: I agree with you. Mr. Engebretson: Just for the record, waiver uses require that a whole number of conditions be met including health, safety, welfare of the community. We think we are on solid ground in making these inquiries. We are not saying that it all hinges on that. As far as censorship over free speech is concerned, we are not limiting anyone's free speech. We believe that we have been very patient here, very open and very forthright. We have no interest in 13991 censoring them relative to their games except to the extent that they are willing to make the commitment that they did. They say they are not going to be violent. You want some further ,,w discussion on that. I don't see what is inappropriate. Mr. Boller: What is your definition of a violent game? Mr. Engebretson: Have you heard of Mortal Combat George? Mr. Boller: I have heard of it. I know nothing about it. Mr. Engebretson: Well go out and take a look at it. It is at the Livonia Mall in the Video Arcade. You will be real impressed. Mr. Boller: I guess that doesn't answer my question Mr. Engebretson. Mr. Engebretson: What are you looking for? Mr. Boller: I was looking for an answer to my question. What is your definition of a violent game? Mr. Piercecchi: Why don't you rule this person out of order. Mr. Engebretson: Well I am going to give him an opportunity but I am not going to sit here for another hour with him abusing everyone including us. Mr. Boller: If anybody, I do not want to be here another hour because I am taking away time from my work, but I am interested in protecting „`, the rights. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to invoke a rule, Section 7 that governs the operation of the Planning Commission. I am going to read it to you. "The Chairman shall have wide discretion in conducting the hearings. He shall have the power to interrupt arguments at any time in the interest of expediting the orderly disposition of the business at hand. He shall be obligated to prevent any party from unduly consuming the Planning Commission's time. The Planning Commission shall take notice of pertinent sections of the Zoning Ordinance or other Ordinances of the City. All written material filed with the Planning Commission will be made a part of the minutes." Now if you have pertinent comments to make relative to this petition, we certainly want to give you the opportunity to make them. I am not going to argue with you. I am not going to get into a debate with you and members of the audience. With that I will return the floor to you. Mr. Boller: Thank you sir. I would call to your attention the fact that this is a public hearing and I do not consider myself a party. I am a member of the public making a presentation for myself and other similarly inclined representatives of the public. I am not a party, therefore, the rule does not apply to me. 13992 Mr. Engebretson: Would you like to name who you are representing? Mr. Boller: I speak for myself, and I believe I speak for many other members `... of the community.miunity. They may not be here tonight but I am sure that many in the community share my belief. I would also call attention to the petitioner's request for a latch key program. I am not sure that falls within the definition of an entertainment center. I don't know why that is relevant to this hearing but we have all heard of granny dumping, I believe, and to me this smacks of kiddy dumping, and I don't think that is in the best interest in the City of Livonia. Mr. Piercecchi: Could we call for a five minute recess? Mr. Engebretson: Let's see if Mr. Boller will conclude his remarks in an orderly way. Mr. Boller: That is fine Mr. Piercecchi. I will sign off for the moment but I would like all members of the Commission to please take my thoughts into account because I think they are very important in your consideration or decision on this issue. Thank you for your time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. EngPhretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-47-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-2-2-9 by Sparky's Operations, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to provide food service in conjunction with a proposed family entertainment center located north of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-2-9 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the number of fixed customer seats shall not exceed 208. 2) That the number of video games shall not exceed 60. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 13993 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. slew Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed outdoor patio dining area is located in a C-2 zoned district and will not create any deficiencies for this site, therefore their department has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file our letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Tartly, we have received a letter ftum Thomas Guastello of Center Management Services, stating on behalf of the adjoining property, Buckingham Office Park and the Comfort Inn, they have no objection to the Olive Garden's request. In the past, such patio was used by Mike Kelly's without any problems. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? The petitioner was not in the audience. Mr. Engebretson: Let me ask is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal. There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #3-48-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between SchooleLaft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-2-2-10 until date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 13994 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-11 by Robert J. Spencer requesting waiver use approval to operate a Precision Tune Auto Repair facility to be located on the southeast corner of Five Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Alanskas excused himself from hearing this petition. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Tastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found. 1. The 5'x14' storage area is not designated as material or refuse storage. This site is required to have provisions for refuse storage. 2. There is no permit on file for the temporary site reclamation building. Is this building functional and how long will it remain at this site? 3. Areas of the building exterior need minor repair. 4. This is a nonconforming building due to a deficient side yard set back. The building has been vacant for more than 1 year which .1r, constitutes termination of a nonconforming use and will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this proposal. 5. This site is allowed 1 ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. or to exceed 6 ft. in height, and 1 wall sign not to exceed 1 sq. ft. for each one lineal food of frontage. Proposed is one conforming ground sign and 2 wall signs. As proposed the sign package will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the second wall sign. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, I am curious about the Inspection Department's concerns relative to the two issues that would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Do we have this out of order here? Should this be going to the Zoning Board first? Mr. Shane: No because this is a waiver use. If it were a site plan, you would be correct. All waiver uses have to be decided by the Planning Commission and City Council and they would be subject to. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Robert Spencer, 13033 Otluond, Belleville, Michigan: I am also the applicant and the area sub-franchiser for Precision Tune. I have several other people in the audience with me tonight to answer various 13995 questions and to give you some names: Kevin Lund and Kirk Cramer representing Garrity & Miller, who are the environmental company responsible for the soil reclamation of the site. Glen Chadoa, vow who is a representative of the Amoco Oil Company, who was a previous tenant of the site over five years ago. Cass Conrad, who is the realtor representing the previous owner of the property and Jim Conrad who is the attorney representing the previous owner. As I mentioned I am the area franchiser for Precision Tune. I have been in the liisiness for 15 years in Wayne County. In fact, I opened the first Precision Tune in the Detroit area at the corner of Middlebelt and Warren in Westland. To give you some quick background on Precision Tune, we are an international company with over 500 locations internationally as far as Taiwan, Mexico, Canada, the Bahamas, and approximately 500 locations in the United States. In the Detroit area we have over 30 locations and again we have been operating here for over 15 years. To talk a little bit about the services that Precision Tune provides the community. We are basically an automobile tuneup and diagnostic company. We provide other services such a oil changes, brakes, belts, hoses, filters, maintenance type items. Usually all our services are performed in an hour or less. We seldom, if ever, have any cars left on our property overnight. I would say 95% of our customers are serviced on the same day that they arrive. Very seldom do we have any cars left on our property. We are open six days a week, approximately 10 hours a day. We do not pump gas. It is prohibited by our company policy. Other services we don't do are transmission repair, body work, and exhaust work for what we consider heavy engine repair. I guess there were a couple of concerns from the Inspection Department about the storage area and the reclamation area. I was made aware of that concern and about the storage area and made changes to our original proposal to include a barrier or a containment for the refuse. Mr. Engebretson: Have you submitted that sir? Mr. Spencer: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: Is it in order Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Spencer: The second issue that I remember from the Inspection Department was the lack of a building permit for the temporary soil reclamation unit and that has been obtained, I believe. As far as the minor repairs of the building, we will certainly take care of those. I understand that there is a variance needed for additional wall signage but we feel it is necessary for the corner location and we plan to abide by the 75 square foot rule that would apply to that building. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. 13996 Mr. rapine: Do you change oil? Mr. Spencer: Yes sir. '`r. Mr. IaPine: The other problem we have, you have one bay here where you have to come in off the public alley. Is there any way that we can lose a parking place because I checked out a couple of your other locations. You don't really have a lot of parking problems. You probably have three to four cars at most places waiting to be serviced. I don't like the idea of pulling in the alley on this one. Is there any way we can remove maybe two parking spaces to the west so maybe you could get the cars in without using the alley? To do that you would have to come in to that property next door, which is the Chinese restaurant, and use their area, or else go around the block and up the alley, which I don't think is very practical to be honest with you. Is there any way that could be done? Mr. Spencer: That issue was brought up to me prior to the meeting. Our attempt to use the alley would be to back vehicles into the bays so as not to create a traffic hazard when pulling the vehicles out so that the driver would have clear visibility when he is exiting the bay area. Mr. LaPine: But that would be the only bay where you would back in. The other three bays you would drive in off Middlebelt or Five Mile and they could drive straight in and then back up. Is that correct? Mr. Spencer: That is correct. We only have one door for each bay. We don't have any drive-thru bays. The lack of parking, we barely met the requirements for spaces based upon employe and number of bays as it is, and to give up any more space for parking on the lot, I think would create parking problems. Mr. LaPine: Let me ask you this question. The building looks like it a solid structure. What kind of exterior renovations are you doing to the building? Mr. Spencer: I plan right now to leave it pretty much the way it sits. The brick is in good shape. It is structurally sound. We would probably put on new doors for the facility. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to do anything to the roof? The roof looked like it was in need of repair when I was out there. Mr. Spencer: Judging from the interior of the building the roof is structurally sound. There are no leaks. We didn't feel we needed to put a new roof on. Mr. LaPine: Is the hydraulic lift still there from when the gas station was there? 13997 Mr. Spencer: All the lifts have been removed. We will be replacing them with probably above-ground lifts and possibly one in-ground lift. ti.- Mr. rapine: What are the hours of the operation? Mr. Spencer: We are open from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Mr. LaPine: I noticed the sign here says seniors 10% off all services, which I have no problem with because I am a senior. That seems to be more prominent than the name of the company. Is that the way it is going to be? Mr. Spencer: That rendition is a very preliminary sketch. I am not sure what proportions each sign will take. We have a standard logo that has a trademark and that has a certain proportion. I know that we are limited by the square footage and we will abide by that. The exact size of each sign, I haven't been able to determine that yet. Mr. Engebretson: I have one question sir. Based on the comment that you made a few moments ago that you have very few locations where cars are left overnight, if cars were left overnight, would they be stored inside? Mr. Spencer: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: In all cases? Mr. Spencer: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? George Boller: I fully support this petition because I personally have known Bob Spencer for a number of years. My wife has known him for many years longer than that. George is a businessman. He invests in the community. I am confident that he will put in a first-rate facility at this location, and that he will comply with all relevant ordinances and requirements. Those of you who are familiar with this particular location may recall it has been vacant for a number of years. It has been used as a Christmas tree sales lot on several past Christmas seasons, and I believe it was two years ago after Christmas there was a gigantic pile of leftover Christmas trees just dumped in the front of the facility. I know there is an ordinance about Christmas trees and Christmas tree sales so I assume that was taken care of. I think a business use would be of benefit to the tax base of Livonia, and will provide a service that will not conflict with other services in the immediate area, and I have full confidence that this will be a benefit to the City of Livonia. 13998 James Conrad, 8300 Common Road, Warren: I am an attorney, and very briefly I would just like to indicate to the Commission that the current owner of the building and the lot is a 93 year old widow by the name of Ada Goers who has owned the property since sometime in the early 1950s. She has reached the point in her life where she would like to sell the property. The property has been vacant, as many of you know, for quite some time. During that period of time, which has been about five years, she has spent approximately $44,000 in taxes, maintenance, weed cutting, etc. , and she would very much appreciate your consideration in approving this petition to allow the sale of what we believe is a very reputable business. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Mr. Piercecchi: I think we have an opportunity to rid ourselves of a very poor site at a very busy intersection and I would gladly make a motion to approve. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-2-2-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #3-49-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-2-2-11 by Robert J. Spencer requesting waiver use approval to operate a Precision Tune Auto Repair facility to be located on the southeast �... corner of Five Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-2-9 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a non-conforming building and subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked drawing number 95-120-1 dated 3-22-95, as revised which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan marked drawing number 95-120-2 dated 3-22-95, as revised which is hereby approved shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked drawing number 95-120-3 dated 3-22-95 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 13999 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. \.. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, raPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10:06 p.m. - Mr. Alanskas returned to the meeting. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and children. Mr. Engebretson: The City Planning Commission is the petitioner in this particular case, and the proposal is to change the ordinance which governs the regulation of detention centers, prisons, psychiatric hospitals and other types of facilities of that nature. It is a very involved ordinance change in terms of the number of words so I will simply mention briefly that these kinds of facilities are going to have to occupy public land, and as you are probably all aware all property that is zoned public land in the City of Livonia is owned by the City. The objective here is to make sure we don't face a rerun of the incident that occurred last summer on Farmington Road when an agency came in, without City approval, and took occupancy of a building that was determined to be inappropriate, the occupancy that is to say, and there was a considerable amount of distress on the part of many people in dealing with that issue. It eventually was determined by the people that occupied the facility that they would abandon it and not seek to come back and reopen the case. The City Planning Commission was concerned at the time that was going on because the ordinance was silent as to the specifics of detention centers and/or prisons, and the definitions were not clear enough to be able to distinguish between prisons, detention centers, psychiatric hospitals, etc. because they have so many things in common. This ordinance will change that. This ordinance defines terms. This ordinance makes it very clear where these kinds of facilities can be located with respect to major thoroughfares, what their setbacks can be, what kind of fencing they will have to have, etc. All the things that were of such great concern to so many citizens of Livonia last summer have been remedied here. 14000 I think we can safely say with this ordinance change that if there ever comes a time when there is another proposal to move such a facility into Livonia, that it will go through a proper �.. process. The ordinance will be in place, and public hearings will occur in a normal fashion as contrasted to moving in in the middle of the night and claiming special privileges having once landed on that property. That is the short version of the changes to the amendment. Since we are the petitioner, that will be the extent of our presentation. This is the appropriate time then to go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposed ordinance change. Rene Arnal, 19476 Shadyside: I think the changes the Commission is petitioning for, I think is a good idea. I was involved in the activities over on Farmington Road from the very beginning. Some of the language in the copy that I received, there are a couple of things that do concern me and that is the amount of footage, for example in this case Tyler Elementary School. I am not exactly clear haw many feet from property lines, whether we are splitting hairs with 400 feet versus 1000 feet. I did notice there was no mention to another sector of the community that needs to be addressed and that is the senior citizens. Senior citizens, a lot of those people are confined to their home. They may not have proper transportation. A lot of the people have settled into an area where they plan to live out the rest of their remaining years. I think some language should include the senior citizens because I think they are a part of this community also. The language, again, that I have seen. I haven't seen the official language, I would like to see that. Something that will afford the safety, health and welfare of the community, I think, needs to be incorporated into that. A lot of times the measurement of feet, boundaries, fences, a lot of those things can be addressed but we have seen in the northern communities where they have put in these detention facilities, no matter what type of security you have, when you mix them with the residential type areas there are problems. For example, the Ryan facility in Detroit, which is a state-of-the-art facility as far as security, and I think we are all aware of what happened at that facility. Again, I think the opportunities were there when they brought it into a residential area that it just brought about opportunities for these problems as far as escape. The family members were being involved as far as helping these prisoners escape and I think those are concerns we need to have addressed. Mr. Engebretson: I don't disagree with what you say so don't interpret anything I say in that context, but I mentioned earlier on in describing this ordinance that the only place that these facilities would be permitted under this ordinance would be on public land owned by the City, and that if there were a proposal to occupy public land or if there were a proposal to change the zoning aunt whatever to public land in order to facilitate this proposal, the next step 14001 would be to go through the waiver use process so there would be a zoning issue and there would be a waiver use issue. Believe me, the impact that facility on Farmington Road had on the seniors living nearby was a significant motivating factor in driving this work product here that has been in process now for a considerable period of time. This just didn't happen in the last couple of weeks, believe me. It is impossible to cover all the eventualities, as I am sure you will agree, and even if we could cover six or seven more things, there would be something else. It is my humble opinion as I read this ordinance, and it has been reviewed by our Law Department and the Mayor, that this is a good ordinance and that if you will recall those departments, the administration and the law department were very much involved in the issue last year and their concerns parallel yours. I think it would be safe to assume that in the future you could look for similar type of support there as the hearing processes go on here and at the City Council. We will have a new Mayor next year so we do have a change there but I suspect we will have all of the vehicles in place here to give you the protection you want, and I am not diminishing the importance of what you suggested but I want you to know we share those concerns and we believe they have been covered. Mr. Arnal: One of the reasons I brought that up, as I said I was involved in the process. At that time there seemed to be a lot of angles for this type of organization whereas I think if we close as many doors as possible to begin with, whether it is a number of ideas brought forth by myself or by the Commission, I think we should cover as many as we possibly can because on the other hand they are just as slick and they can find as many ways to come into our community as we think we have to keep them out. Mr. Engebretson: I have to agree with you so with that in mind why don't you arrange to get an official copy of this proposed ordinance. I think Mr. Shane is going to give you a copy right now. Acquaint yourself with those details and, as you know, this is just the first step in the process. This will go to the City Council and they will go through that process having another public hearing there. Make sure that as you cover the proposed ordinance change that if there are specific changes you feel are appropriate you may want to either submit that information to the Planning staff or to the Council office or the Law Department. This was done by the Legal Department. They put the finishing touches on it. If there are things you feel are appropriate find some way to communicate with the City with what those specifics are. I am sure they will be very glad to listen to that, and Council certainly has the authority to strengthen this proposal assuming that it goes there with a favorable recommendation. Linda Scheel, 19980 Mayfield: Where I reside is right around the corner from Tyler Elementary and it is about two doors away from Jaycee Park. Jaycce Park backs up to the back of the Ardmore facility. What I 14002 am questioning is the proposal basically states that this type of facility could only be operated on public lands, something owned by the state or the city. The Ardmore facility, as it is known, '1101. is up for sale. What if the state does come in and buy it? As long as they comply with all these, they can put a facility in there. We don't want a facility there. We want to make sure that if the state does come in and try to buy that, that all of the residents in the area, and the school, will be notified so that we can present our opinions at that time. Mr. Engebretson: The act of the state or the county buying that land don't make it public land. It still needs to be zoned. It needs to go through the process. If Wayne County or the State of Michigan should acquire that property for some reason, I can't imagine why they would, but if they did, they would have to file a petition to get the proper zoning and then file a petition for a waiver use so I can count at least four public hearings there, and the request for a zoning change triggers automatic notification of neighbors so it would never, never happen in the middle of the night. Mr. Piercecchi: H, that Ardmore facility is less than 20 acres isn't it? Mr. Shane: I would say it is around 20 acres. Mr. McCann: H, you reviewed this as to the Ardmore property? Mr. Shane: We drafted the ordinance without any specific property in mind 'garbut with the problem in mind that this is a legitimate use so to speak and you may not totally prohibit a legitimate use. Therefore, we had to come up with some language that would provide for it but at the same time provide the kinds of controls and standards that would make it somewhat difficult to comply with but not impossible. It has to be reasonable, and although we thought about the Ardmore sight, the amount of acreage was more or less an idea we came up with a minimum. Whether it is 20 or 25 probably doesn't make a lot of difference. To answer your question, we didn't look at Ardmore specifically. Mr. McCann: That was not my question. There were a couple of things that when I read it because that had been a prior issue as to that site. That is within 400 feet of a public park. Isn't it? Mr. Shane: Probably. Mr. McCann: There are certain things within this that I don't believe that property could be zoned under the current proposed article, not that that was used in preparing this. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane would it be appropriate for the Planning Commission to amend this proposed ordinance change to 25 acres, or because of the manner in which the public hearing is advertised, etc. would that in inappropriate? 14003 Mr. Shane: It certainly is appropriate. You can make whatever change you want. This is a relatively minor point and it is a change of an acreage in an ordinance amendment so you can do that. �i.► Patrick Banas, 33638 Norfolk: I would like to thank the Commission for hearing my views. I would also like to compliment some of the friends and neighbors I met by going through the Ardmore battle. One thing we did learn in the battle was we weren't immune to having this type of facility in our City because of some legal loopholes so we would be at the adversity of a judge who could allow such a facility to exist because of the way our ordinance was written. I would like to go on record and thank the Commission for being pro-active in trying to do the best that we can to contain such a usage of our property and if all of our concerns are met, I would like to urge you to go ahead and approve it. Michael Driscoll, 19229 Shadyside: I do appreciate your going ahead with this change to the zoning ordinance. I would like to request that the distance from a school be increased to 1000 feet. 400 feet seems a little too close. Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if you have had a chance to read the ordinance. There are numerous conditions that have to be met, and I don't know if there are any situations where everything except that particular one could fly. Mr. Driscoll: These are all waivable items. The Planning Commission and the City Council could not waiver these things? Iteems such as two-story limit? Mr. Shane: Those items could be waivered but only by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Engebretson: That is a special process. There is no way to make everything bullet proof but that would be a real hard case to sell. There has to be a hardship shown in order to gain the Zoning Board approval for a proposal and it is a rather rigorous process. Even if they did, then you have to assume that they have met all these other conditions, which means they have gone through two public hearings with us and the Council and they have gone through a waiver use process here and with the Council. Each step of the way you are involved. Mr. Driscoll: I do appreciate being involved. I do think though that 1000 feet would be a minimum. Every square mile is over 5000 feet, and I would much prefer to have the schools located, and this facility or that facility, located at least 1000 feet from any school. Mr. McCann: In brief response, you have to understand that we have to be careful. We essentially, as Mr. Shane stated, cannot in essence put in an ordinance that would effectively make it impossible for any of these types of institutions to come within vr.► 14004 the City of Livonia. If you increase the size of the acres, increase the distances between various sites, what essentially you would do at some point is make it literally impossible for rr any vacant land in the City of Livonia to comply. If you do that, the ordinance itself would be suspect in court, and the intended purpose of the ordinance in the beginning would be lost completely. Whereas if you make it within some reasonable standard in the ordinance, it has a better chance of upholding itself in court. We can show it was a reasonable basis for the passage of the ordinance and we did not try to effectively outlaw this type of use within the City. There was a lot of time spent by the Planning Department in determining what would best suit it, would make it possible and yet protect the areas around the City. They spent a lot of time with this. I think the residents would be very happy with the results if they sat down with a City map and took a look at where the possibilities of these places being located are when you configure all the areas indicated, that they really would protect the citizens. Mr. Driscoll: I do appreciate that. It just seems like 1000 feet is not much to ask. There are areas that would still be available, although maybe fewer. Other requirements such as number of beds per acre. We see a limit on the number of seats in a restaurant or beds in a hospital based on the number of parking spaces available. There is some sort of a tie there. Some sort of a tie could also be used that if you have a 20 acre facility or a 25 acre facility, the maximum number of beds you could have is possibly 50. I would like to see something like that also added. *l` Mr. Engebretson: Your comments sir, even if we don't act on all of them, will certainly become a part of the record that goes forward to the City Council and I believe they read these minutes as part of their preparation for dealing with these cases, and you, of course, also have the opportunity to submit recommendations and to testify at their hearing as well. I would like to make one additional comment to follow up on Mr. McCann's description of what is going on here, and that is that this ordinance is not aimed at Ardmore. It is not aimed at any particular location in the City. It is meant to be a general guide, and if we were to build an ordinance that is aimed at one location, I think Mr. McCann would agree the ordinance would be subject to attack in the same context he was mentioning earlier, so we are trying to be extremely diligent here in doing this in a manner that prevents another fire storm like we had last summer and we really truly believe we accomplished that. Mr. Driscoll: I do appreciate that. There are so many different facilities within the City, vacant schools, elementary schools, that we are no longer using, that are having new uses applied to them. There are quite a few places we still could see this type of activity take place. 14005 Frank Bertani, 33080 Norfolk: I don't have much to say. I appreciate what you people are trying to do with this. I know you can't make it 100% against what we are trying to achieve. I am sure anything will help. That 25 acres sounds like a good idea. For the most part, I just want to go on record saying I support what you are doing and I appreciate it. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you. We appreciate you taking the time to come down here. Karen Govender, 20121 Mayfield: I would like to say I also support the amendment this evening. Kimberly Naccashian, 32750 Norfolk: On behalf of myself, my husband Ed, Karen Scheme, who could not be here, they had to leave, and Louise Michaels, who also was here and had to leave, we would also like to say thank you very much for the amendment. We are all in favor of the amendment and we appreciate your time in considering our concerns in the Ardmore facility and we hope that something nice goes in there, maybe a YMCA or a senior center or something nice because it is a nice facility. Thank you very much. Mr. Engebretson: We share your opinion. It is a nice facility and we would like to see it put to a good use also. Jack Kirksey, 32710 Barkley: I would also like to go on record to enthusiastically support this proposed change. It very definitely will give the City much needed control in trying to prevent the very tragic circumstances that befell the City last year. I certainly also commend the citizens that came forward last year and through their actions were able to turn a very, very dangerous situation around. This particular language, I have a copy of it here tonight, I think will go a long way to preventing that same type of thing from happening again in the future. I do think that changes are possible to this. If you look at (4) on the second page of the document where it says "Such use shall have twenty-four (24) hour supervision and surveillance on site at all times.", we can take provisions of this type and if there is a correction code that sets a certain level of surveillance or manning on an institution because it would be very easy to adhere to something like this actually addressing the verbiage and at the same time really not supplying the kind of surveillance that would be needed. The real goal, of course, is to never have a facility of this type located in a residential area in any city in our state, especially ours, but I think without approaching Mr. McCann's concerns, which I realize are legally very valid, I think you could take, and as you spell out what the gentleman indicated if there is a possibility of some type of a density factor, with the density factor if you add a factor which would create a high economic level of supervision. They could bring someone in at minimum wage and say that is your supervision and adhere to these changes at the facility, and be able to come in 14006 and locate. I think the more we can strengthen this thing and make any facility that might want to establish a location in our City look at the economics of it without it being illegal, ``. without it hitting the parameters that Mr. McCann was talking about. If you could get something that just did not make sense from a business standpoint, that sometimes would also serve as a deterrent. I certainly greatly support the initiative and the leadership that brought this document into being. I certainly wish it well as it goes forth through the process. Mr. Engebretson: Thanks for coming down and staying with us Mr. Kirksey. Mr. Shane, I believe that he raised a very important issue that it would be possible under section (4) of item (a) under Section 12.03 granting the waiver use, it would be possible for someone to comply thoroughly with this requirement, and I think while this works it way to the City Council that it would be appropriate to ask our Legal Department to look at the ways we might strengthen this to make it more meaningful and defensible. As Mr. Kirksey points out I think that in the extreme situation you could have one unqualified person on site during the night hours who wouldn't have any possible chance of supervising any number of people. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-6-1 closed. Mr. McCann: I appreciate all these people coming out tonight. This is our own petition. I am very much in favor of it. I think there is a `41., very strong need for it but I think the speakers tonight brought some pertinent issues up. I would like to have the opportunity to review some of the changes that were discussed tonight, possible the one regarding the 24-hour supervision. If you have one person with 50 people there, it may not be sufficient. I would like the opportunity to review this at some other point. I would therefore make a tabling resolution so that we could take a look at amending some of this language. I don't want to do it for a long period of time but to give the staff time to digest the comments that were made tonight by the people and fellow Commissioners. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #3-50-95 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and children, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-2-6-1 until the Regular Meeting of April 25, 1995. 14007 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: I am sorry we couldn't dispose of this tonight but I think that we, by taking the action that we did out of respect for the comments that you brought to us, and to have moved it on for the sake of moving it on would have been inappropriate, in my opinion, so I gladly support the tabling motion. If you have specific suggestions that you want to make, we will be glad to work with you in the meantime, but we will take this up four weeks f um tonight, and we will pass this ordinance and we will move it on to the City Council so they can put the finishing touches on it and soon after this will become law. Mr. Tapine: I would like to see the 400 feet changed to 500 feet. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivisions #2 and #3 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, would it be your impression that the plat as presented there would basically have everything defined as R-3 or better? Mr. Miller: At least R-2. Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation stating no problems or discrepancies will be caused by this development. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file are letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to these plans. Mr. McCann: We will go to the petitioner. William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I wonder at this time if I may impose upon the Acting Chairman to perhaps take up Items 6 and 7 and do them in tandem because this evening has been kind of strange and different and I am going to add to it because if we can put these two together then I would ask this Planning Commission to go into a quantum leap to 1989 so they go back to the original agreement. Mr. McCann: You can go ahead and discuss the two but it will be brought up and voted on separately. Would that suffice? 14008 Mr. Roskelly: Yes it will. In 1989 or late 1988 by Circuit Court Consent Judgment this land was zoned as shown. (He presented a plan which showed the land on both sides of Newburgh) We started up at Seven Mile on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh that was zoned office as well as on the southwest corner approximately 17 acres was also office up to four stories. The balance of the land west of Newburgh Road was zoned R-3, with the exception of the south approximately 16 acres which was zoned R-7 or multiple. On the east side of Newburgh Road we had all R-4, which is 90'x130' lots, and on the extreme south end there was an area of 7 1/2 acres which was zoned R-7. After that decision of Circuit Court, we came in with this master plan. In 1990 we then presented a pre-preliminary plat on Estates #1 and Manor #1. We then completed the engineering on those two and at this time there are 43 sites in Estates #1, which I believe most of them are built and occupied, and 44 in Manor #1, which I believe are all built and occupied. In 1991 we then submitted pre-preliminary plats on Estates #2, Estates #3, Manor #2 and Manor #3. They were all approved at that time but lo and behold up comes a water ban that last 4 1/2 years. Since that time the land has been disposed of to Biltmore Development Corporation, which I represent acting as their engineering agent, and we have now come up with the two new concepts eliminating the R-7, continuing the R-3, eliminating the R-7 and continuing with the R-4. So in summation, the original density of these properties would have been approximately 254 single family homes and 140 to 150 condominium units. We have now cut it down to the total will be 229 units in our new proposal plus 43 and 44, which runs somewhere in the area of 300 and some units. So from the initial approvals that we had, we are cutting down the number of units by approximately 90. Other than that I believe we comply with all the rules and regulations. All lots, whether in the R-7 or other, all these would be R-3 or more. In fact, the depth in R-3 is 130. Almost all our lots have been increased to 135 feet. In the R-4, or east side, including the R-7, all lots are minimum of 90 feet with a minimum 130 and most of them are 135 feet deep. Since this first drawing we have increased the size of the park area so we are completely out of the wetland areas and won't be subjected to any of that. With that I would certainly answer any questions. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, you say you sold off all the balance of these lots to Biltmore. Are they going to be the developer now? Mr. Roskelly: The property, in its present condition prior to platting, has been sold to Biltmore Development, and I am acting as their agent and engineer for the development purposes. Mr. LaPine: Biltmore then sells off the lots to individual builders, do they not? Mr. Roskelly: Biltmore develops land. They do not build. tftB 14009 Mr. TFPine: Do you know what builders they are going to have in there? Mr. Roskelly: I have a feeling that the four builders that were there in the first two subdivisions, which I managed under Excalibur, they have certainly indicated a desire to be in there but I really have no control over Biltmore. Mr. T.Pine: What will these homes be going at Bill, $200,000-$250,000? Mr. Roskelly: I would certainly say that with the four-five years that have passed, with the cost of the land, and certainly we are all aware that the building has to be a ratio of the lot costs, my suggestion would be your $200,000 number is certainly in order, and perhaps it would be somewhat higher on the east side with the 90 foot lots. Certainly it would be in compliance and similar and better than the existing homes that have been built in the first two subdivisions. Mr. LaPine: Seeing that the zoning of this land was already done by the courts, and they designated certain lands as R-7, is there any problem with the courts now turning it into R-4 and R-3? Mr. Roskelly: No, in fact, your ordinance permits R-3, R-4 or R-2 in an R-7 zone. I suggest in the form of housekeeping at some later date we will pursue and rezone this to R-3 and R-4, but to my understanding it is not creating any complications because it is a lesser use. r,11111, Mr. Alanskas: With the amount of lots you are putting in will there be a water problem? Mr. Roskelly: No sir. As you all well know Livonia was given approximately 700 to 800 water taps and of that I now have the written commitment for 229 taps that have been reserved for this land and are in the bank, so to speak. We do have water taps. Mr. Engebretson: Just a point of interest on that issue Mr. Alanskas, you will also recall that the companion portion of that new determination by the state relative to those water taps does give the City not only the requirement but the obligation and the enforcement tools necessary to enforce sprinkling on odd and even days, etc. Whereas in the past it was a voluntary thing, there are some ways that if we get into a problem like we had in 1988, there are ways around it. Mr. Roskelly: If I may Mr. Chairman, the 72 inch line that is going to correct all this is, I believe, the first phase is subject to completion very soon, and I would think in another year it will be complete and as a result there are adequate taps for what business confronts the City of Livonia at this time. Mr. Engebretson: Thanks for adding that. I wasn't aware that it was that close to completion. 14010 Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, you are requesting that we waive the open space requirement regarding both of these developments. Is that correct? "`` Mr. Roskelly: Yes I am, but in effect we are contributing ng open space (he pointed it out on the map) The area that lies south of Caliburn Estates #1 and north of Estates #2, this area represents approximately 5.2 acres. Since that time and in our redesign as depicted in our present drawings, we will show that this area has been expanded to almost 6 1/2 acres, so in effect it is a park area. Mr. McCann: Isn't that flood control area there? Mr. Roskelly: Most of it is designated as wetlands but it is open space and perhaps will be left in its natural state, which is park per se as passive, and I understand the City in the past is somewhat dull on these individual parks. It only creates more work. Yes we are waiving it. Mr. McCann: You do have open space and I agree on the east side of Newburgh Road. However, when I am looking at #2 and #3 on the west side, when I was a kid growing up we always had islands or common play area for softball, etc. The area along Newburgh Road wouldn't be appropriate. You have some deeper lots but that doesn't give any play space for children for park area or for the kids to get together and play softball. There is nothing on that side but playing in the street. I know the P.O. on the top, we didn't No .- know what was going to be there, how much greenbelt, possible area for playing. However, that petition has come through and there is going to be not only a greenbelt but a five foot berm with plantings all the way around it so they are not going to have that area. It seems to me there is no particular place for the children in those two sections to play softball and get together. Mr. Roskelly: Certainly that is true. There would be none even when I speak of this open space. It seems in the last five to ten years that these small playgrounds have become almost a menace to the City Parks & Recreation from an insurance standpoint. I believe in the past six or seven subdivisions I have always had it waived. Mr. McCann: But your subs have been much smaller than this except for the one on Inkster Road. Also you provided quite a nice park land, you will testify to, around the water reservoir there. Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. McCann: So there is sufficient play space there and that was one of the things I depended on since I was one of the original people that voted on that one. Mr. Roskelly: Except that is not available for games such as baseball. It is merely a passive park. I suggest what could happen here is you 14011 could have perhaps a walkway through this area, which I believe should be in the hands of the association rather than the City's Parks Department. Mr. McCann: That doesn't help me on the west side. I have a real problem finding any play area for children at all. How many lots are on the west side of Newburgh? Mr. Roskelly: 115 plus the initial 44. Mr. McCann: 150 lots without one common area for the children to play. That is a real problem. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Gus Tawil: I am the President of Melody Manor Association. As you all remember, Jack and Jim and Mr. LaPine, how much we worked to reach this point to have homes in that golf course. I know Biltmore will appreciate our work. Of course we all benefit. I have just a few comments about the plan as it stands now. Number one, Margareta. Way back in 1988 when we discussed things with Mr. Bennett along with our committee and Mr. Shenkman, the understanding was that Margareta would not go back to Newburgh. Margareta is the dividing line between our subdivision, which is Melody Manor, and Prides Court. Is the plan to go through? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. Tawil: As you know very recently we have had a traffic light installed at Blue Skies and Seven Mile Road. Our fear is very high that with this 150 homes as they want to get access to I-275 that they are not going to use the street that is between these two lines of houses, because it would be very difficult to make a left turn, so they will be tempted to go through Margareta and use either Blue Skies, so they can come out at the light, or our street. We don't have sidewalks. It is only two lanes. So we are very concerned that Margareta should not be a through street. Number two, between our subdivision and the Prides Court there is a row of high trccc, very beautiful trccc. We like looking at the trees. We don't know if they are on our side or your side but these are both for beauty, for sound barrier and, of course, they have been there before either us or them. Thirdly is the issue Mr. McCann brought up. As you look only to the west side of Newburgh, you are talking about 160 homes there, and they are just jammed and I don't think this plan at this location in Livonia, that this is a nice plan for that area. Either cul-de-sacs or some kind of open area for the children to be there would be a big help for the families that are buying there. Prides Court just south of us, we see that the kids are continuously on the road. They are lucky they have sidewalks over there. So the trees, the density of the homes in there, and 14012 the through of Margareta, that is what we object to. One other comment, our people in our subdivision were not aware of this meeting Mr. Chairman. The only person that got a letter from you was Mrs. Martin. She was the only one that got a letter and she told me. I know we are within 500 feet. This is a big subdivision and when you talk about a street that is opening here, this affects everyone here. If it wasn't for the conscientiousness of the lady to bring it to our attention, we had no time to tell people so they could learn what is going on with this golf course property. Mr. Engebretson: All I can say regarding the notification is that I am sure that they complied with the requirements of the ordinance. Maybe that wasn't enough. Maybe there should have been some extra consideration here given the high visibility of this particular site. If an apology is in order, I will certainly extend one. If you feel that this issue would generate extensive neighbors' comments had time been given, I suppose there could always be a recommendation to table and reschedule it to a date certain when you would know and would have an opportunity to do that. Frankly, when I saw you here tonight I thought you would be here to applaud this because when you stop to consider what we almost had there. Do you feel that if the time had been greater and the notification had been wider, that there would indeed have been public involvement? Mr. Tawil: I believe if Margareta is going to be opened to the new subdivision, it is going to be very hard on our children that have been playing there in the street riding their bikes and here you take the traffic from at least 100 homes to go through our streets to get to the expressway. There will be very much of a negative feeling as to how come we did not know about it. Mr. Engebretson: You do have a different problem on the west side where Margareta connects to Blue Skies because of the width of those other streets that people may exit through to make a left turn onto westbound Seven Mile Road. It would be my impression if I were exiting that subdivision what I would do is get out on Newburgh and make that left turn. I wouldn't want to go through that secluded route going up to Blue Skies to get on at that light. I think I would rather take a chance on Newburgh Road but it is just a personal thing. Mr. Tawil: It is difficult to predict. Mr. Engebretson: Your comments are duly noted and we will hear from the others in the audience and then we will dispose of the matter. As you know, this is just the beginning. This is the only public hearing on a preliminary plat so when the Council hears this it will not be in a public hearing environment, but you know our system and you know haw to participate in those meetings. tITB 14013 Laurie Colley, 37538 Kingsbury: I live in Caliburn Manor on the west side of Newburgh. I am the second lot from where the new subdivision would be starting. I have a couple of concerns. One is that first of all that barrier stay in place as long as the construction is being done so we don't have the construction vehicles running through from the east side of Newburgh to the west side of Newburgh and turning around and doing all kinds of things that we have already been through. I know it is going to be a mess until the roads are settled and the houses are built. I understand that. We have been through that, but if we could keep those barricades both at the end of Caliburn and at the end of Kingsbury until at least the roads are developed and some of the buildings are in place, I think that would be a consideration. Mr. Engebretson: Are the barriers there now? Ms. Colley: They are there now. I do have a concern with that being a thoroughfare once the barriers are up and people cutting through that Seven Mile and Newburgh intersection even with the left turn lane. It still seems to be a blocked up intersection. I think once the credit union across the street, if they have their right turn lane in there and start clearing up some of that, maybe we won't run into that but I do hope not to see traffic cutting through our sub along Kingsbury from Seven to Newburgh to avoid the light, so if somehow we could hopefully do something about that. I had a couple of questions for Biltmore Properties. I wonder if they would be developing this separately, #2 first, #3 second, roads and sewers first, blocking it off and selling #2 and then opening it up to #3. Just haw they were going to do that? Both sides at the same time? Both Past and west of Newburgh? If it is all going to be done at the same time? The other thing was where would the models be located? If they were going to be on the west side, if they were going to be close to Seven Mile or if they could be kept on the east side where there are no existing homes? The rest of Caliburn Estates on the east side would not be connected to the stage #2 and #3, I don't think from what I could see on the map, so possibly if the models could be on the east side of the road that would be better. If not, then maybe place them as close to Seven Mile as they could to keep it from cutting through our area. As far as the price of the homes is concerned, you mentioned the $200,000 range. That is pretty much what we paid for ours within the last two years but the first house that I noticed to be sold without builders' interest, person to person on their awn, it went for about $250,000 so I request them to keep up the standards of the homes and the prices of the homes, brick exterior, real chimneys, all the different things that we have had to abide by in our set of rules that we have in our subdivision code book, or whatever you call it, that will keep the standards of that sub up as well as we expect ours to be kept up. No satellite dishes, no this and that, etc. It is a book an inch thick. The other thing was the 14014 question how many builders and which ones, but that is still up in the air. I do understand that. I think that is just about it. I did just get notice myself yesterday so I think we could `.. have gotten more neighbors here as well for their input. As far as the playground in the area, I do think something should be in that sub especially now that we are losing our backyards to Providence, which is a wonderful development, but it does cut everything down all at once so there is no vacant land anywhere on the west side. If we could have something somewhere we would appreciate it. Mr. Engebretson: We will make those inquiries at the conclusion of the public hearing to give the developer an opportunity to respond to those points. Amy Lou Martin, 37655 Margareta: I am immediately adjacent to it. I got this Saturday and went to my next-door neighbors who are within 300 feet because they are right behind me, and they didn't receive notification, and I went to the people across the street who are also within 300 feet, they are immediately adjacent, and they didn't receive notification either, so they were very happy to hear from me and I am sure you made every effort to notify, but it was a little tight. I am very concerned about Margareta also going through. The street where I am right now is a dead end and small children come down and learn to ride their bikes there. Kids on roller blades come down there. It is very nice right now and I am very concerned about the increase in traffic. I look at the plan and I don't find it particularly aesthetically appealing. I think they could have done a little better job. I would like to say that I am not particularly in favor. I like the idea that it is going to be developed but I am not crazy about the plan as it stands. Bruce Bonn, 18335 Queensbury: That is lot 16 on the west side of Newburgh. I guess my major concern is if you look at the lots as they are plotted here, 116 to 135 and 135 through 159, originally those were identified to be the R-7 condominiums when they put the berm up between our house and that section. There is a berm there now and there is no access to that area and supposedly anyone going to be living there will be coming out of that subdivision onto Newburgh and the way it looks now the people from Manor, Queensbury and that section, which would be to the southwest of that area, will all be coming down through Caliburn onto Newburgh. That is roughly 115 families that will be coming through that exit. The plot we live in right now there are 44 homes. 31 of those homes use that area now to come out to Newburgh because of the closeness to Seven Mile. There is an awful lot of traffic. Assuming that they continue to develop the homes in there rather than the condos, that they would find another way to access the road. I realize the way they have it laid out here now it could be a problem because of the east side of Newburgh. That is a tremendous amount of vehicles coming through there. We are also going to have the problem, I am sure, 14015 of people trying to cut through back on Kingsbury and getting back on Seven Mile because we already have a problem with people coming through there now thinking they can get through. I do appreciate your taking the time to listen to us. I appreciate the fact that you sent us the notices. You have helped us in the past. I hope you will take our suggestions and consider them at this time. Sandy Crowe, 36883 Curtis: I am concerned with the east side of this situation. Specifically I am concerned with Curtis. On this map, the preliminary map of 1980, it shows Curtis opening up at the bottom with just a cul-de-sac with nine homes, and I live right at that dead end where Curtis dead ended at that point. We figured well if it is going to be developed I guess a cul-de-sac is the best we can hope for. Now this new map has come out and Curtis is opened all the way up through to Newburgh. There are ten homes in that area that were on a dead end and we are awfully upset about that. We do not want that street opened. Taylor Elementary School is five houses down. This area is a woods right now. (She pointed this out on the map) Kids come down and walk through the woods. We realize development is going to happen but we want Curtis opened up to Newburgh. It will be too much traffic especially with a school there. When I came to Livonia ten years ago I was so impressed with this City. There are beautiful subdivisions all over, and little subdivisions with little parks. It was obviously a very family oriented town. When they talked about putting a park on the other side of Newburgh, I can understand their feelings. That has always been one of the highlights of Livonia. That is why a person I met at Saw Metro Airport said they were trying to get into Livonia. That doesn't happen I think in Mt. Clements or Sterling Heights or Warren. It is Livonia, and it is because you have been so family oriented. That is my main point. I would like you to consider not opening Curtis. A cul-de-sac would be fine. David Canavesio, 18493 Queensbury: I have the same concerns everyone else has that spoke so far so I won't repeat those. I have a couple of additional concerns. First off, in the section where they were putting the condos, from the drawing I received I can't tell if that street is going to be 50 feet wide or 60 feet wide. Mr. Shane: They will all be 60 feet. Mr. Canvesio: I was curious when the homes would be constructed, when the streets would be installed. What is the timing on that? The other thing I would like to know, behind our homes on Queensbury we had a real problem with a lot of water standing there. What the developer did about two years ago was put in a drain that tied into the sewer. I want to make sure that when they build homes behind me, my backyard is not flooded out again. I had a real big problem with that. I wrote letters to the City, to the developer, and to be honest with you I got very little response. In fact, no response from the developer from letters I wrote and 14016 phone calls I made to Mr. Roskelly. I find him very difficult to deal with. I appreciate your time and I look forward to getting this resolved. Mr. Engebretson: Let me just mention to you that part of this process, this preliminary plat, if approved, that then triggers all sorts of activities including getting the Engineering Department involved to determine whether or not the plat has been laid out properly, graded properly, drained properly, etc. to guard against the kind of problem that you are concerned about, and it would be my recommendation to you that in the future you may be better served talking to the Engineering Department. Mr. Canvesio: I have done that more than once, several times. What we have now, for your information Mr. Chairman, is we have a very small berm between our lot line and behind us, and there is a valley on each side of that berm to help the drainage. If they take down that berm, all that water is going to come onto the homes that are currently on Queensbury that will back up to this new subdivision. Mr. Engebretson: It is my belief that there will be every effort made to avoid that and if you don't get proper timely response from these individual departments that you called, then you should call the Mayor's office. Mr. Canvesio: I did that and that is how I finally got a response. Mr. Engebretson: It is my experience that these people are normally cooperative ' and I don't know why you were dissatisfied, but I will take you at your word that it was unsatisfactory. Mr. Canvesio: I appreciate that. I just want you to take that into consideration. Mike Guido, 18518 Queensbury: That is lot 22. I have a couple of concerns. One is we have an area of 44 homes right now. In those 44 homes we have approximately 55 to 60 school-age children. Mr. McCann what you brought up is very important I think to us and for our children to have some place for them to go. We have a unique situation, which we know we can't have forever. I think it is important to give them somewhere to go to. We do have Newburgh. None of us want our children to cross Newburgh. We don't want them going to Laurel Park mall to play and we do not want them going to the hospital area to play so we do need someplace for them to go to. Another problem that we developed in the first phase was the original landscaping of the berm for the entrance area, which is something I think this Commission should look at for the future, not only with Biltmore or Mr. Roskelly but with other subdivisions. If you go into other areas, Novi, Northville, etc. you will find that when they begin a subdivision, the first thing they do is sculpt the entrance area 14017 so it brings in people quickly to the area to buy and really spruces it up. The last thing that I believe we had done and Caliburn Estates had done was the berm at the entrance way and we \... fought to finally get it done. I think that is a very important point for the Commission to look at not only for our area but for future areas. Jim Simoff, 18471 Queensbury: That is lot 13. Just to back up what Dave said, my neighbor, we initiated the problem with the water. Dave Woodcox and I got to be on a first-name basis. We fought for three years basically before a drain was put in. Mr. Roskelly, I believe, finally came out along with City Engineering. A five foot drain was dug. Two foot of pea gravel was put in. Drain tile was put in. Another two foot of pea gravel was put in and a foot of dirt. Just prior to that we had an average of 1 1/2 inch to 2 inches of water sitting in our backyard. The electric box is sitting in the corner of our property line and has sunk down about six inches. I have had the electric company out there. They have made modifications. We have asked for water relief. We have had engineering out there. I have had the City out there on numerous occasions to shoot the grade and they tell us there is nothing wrong with the grade. My biggest concern is, I have nothing against the plot and the homes going in behind us, I would like to see (a) a spot for the children to play, and (b) when they do grade the property behind us, to give us some relief from the water. A berm was put in to help the water flaw. It is actually percolating out of the ground. `. Catherine Bender, 18370 Queensbury: That is on the west side. I have two concerns. I have three children. There is no place for the children to play with this proposed plan. It is true that they do play in the street right now. All the other concerns stated by everyone else, are a concern to me. Also, the main concern I have is that the developer keeps the standards that we were once promised in developing the homes such as we were told the chimneys would be brick. The last several homes have been fabricated. Things like that. That the standards be kept what they promised us and not less. When you state you will start the homes around $200,000, four years ago that is what we put into the homes to start with. It is four years later, the cost of living. I do not want to see less types of material put in so you can start building at $200,000 so it looks less than what we have already started plus what we put into it. Francis Grech, 18397 Queensbury: I also had a water property in the corner of my lot. Basically when it rains hard, that clay does not absorb water. You don't cut grass for that week. You let it go. My neighbor, Mr. Bonn, he had the same problem except it extends across his whole yard in the back. It is a low swale. the thing is when the contractors came in and dug the basements, they spread the dirt out. They spread it out beyond the lot line and now the water flows down into the swale, which is on our 14018 property. We have gone to Engineering. Engineering said there is no problem with that. It will go away. Give it three days. Sometimes it is five or six days. The thing is it is almost like °�.. the developer has his plans, and they look good, however, the contractor comes in and does what he wants. He changes things and things don't work out the way they should and then they won't come back and change it because as I was told you the final grade was approved and you will have to live with it. As far as the traffic situation on Newburgh, anybody coming out of the east side on Clarita will not be able to make a left hand turn because that traffic backs up almost to Laurel Park. There are many nights when I am forced to drive home 200 feet in the left hand lane to get to Caliburn to make my left hand turn into Caliburn. The traffic situation is rough. Francis Papke, 37450 N. Laurel Park: We too have drainage problems. We are immediately south of the proposed improvement on the west side of Newburgh. At the time of the court order that permitted the zoning change and adoption, we were assured by those that were speaking for it that we would be taken care of with the development. Our Mayor at that time did say that he would assure us that a letter would be put in the engineering file that when the improvements were put in, that would remind Mr. Clark that we had the special problem with water draining from the north onto our site. I have not seen that letter. I have asked to visit and take a look at it and get a copy of it. However, this was verbal and he was the Mayor. The surface water we have been living with on our roadway due to our freezing and thaw `r.. action for the last ten years has built up from curb to curb. We have called the DPW to look at it, Engineering to look at it. There is no way that they could handle this because the water would drop down the gutter, slow down in the evening, freeze and build up. The storm system that we have on site is our condo's responsibility. It has frozen the catch basin from a spot close to 200 feet from curb to curb. Every winter we have a terrific health and safety hazard. Our people are getting older. They still like to get out but even with a car it is almost impossible during certain months. I happen to be a civil engineer. I know the people in the City quite well. I have been on the board with Aspen. That is why I am concerned. For ten years now we have had no action. I would like to request we be allowed to review the grading plan with Mr. Clark of the Engineering Dept. to make sure we are protected. Several years ago the land owner did dig a ditch, made an attempt to intercede the water that came out of our site. It did nothing. It was just another pond. Now we would like to take a look and see what is really going on. The preliminary plat that you were looking at shows a catch basin at the rear line on the easterly side of proposed lot 122. The little point on lot 129 and 130 that points up is really the low land on that site. It looks as though the proposed service to the subdivision had not produced enough thought other than to throw a few lines on paper. We do request to review the grading with Mr. Clark after the engineering plans are completed. 14019 Robert Barrett, 37478 N. Laurel Park: Everything that Mr. Papke said I agree with. We do have a very bad problem in the winter with the drainage and consequently we spend x amount of money just putting rock salt down there. This doesn't help the environment at all. I would say you can go $3,000 to $4,000 without a problem. As far as the City Engineering Department, Mr. Clark has talked quite a few times with Mr. Roskelly and he also has written him letters. I have copies of them but I didn't bring them with me today. cast year Mr. Roskelly promised that last summer he would take care of that grade problem, the year prior to that also. Consequently, nothing has been done. We still have the problem. The promises he makes, he doesn't follow through with. The way the development looks, I don't know personally, but the first drawing he had up there showed that R-7 area with nothing in it. This one he just put up does show R-7. I would like to know when they are planning on doing something in the R-7. If they leave the R-7 lay idle and start developing the rest, we might have a problem for another year or two. I think that should be part of the agreement that the drainage problem be taken care of right up front because the promise has been there. When they came in with equipment and put the berm in south of the roads where they put the new homes, at that time they said they were going to do something. They never did anything. I would appreciate it if that was looked into because it is a very serious problem. It is all ice in our circle and our roads aren't as wide as a normal street. Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your comments sir and I can tell you they are of great interest to us and I hope we can make some progress on them. There have been so many points brought up here tonight, I don't know if it is possible for Mr. Roskelly to begin to respond to them but I would like to ask him to comment on a couple of the larger issues relative to haw you would plan to develop various subdivisions there in terms of order, where the models would be located, and also very importantly, not necessarily most importantly, is it your intent that you would utilize some form of control to guarantee that the homes built in the subdivisions would be equal to the homes that exist there now, and finally if you could, without getting into a lot of detail, comment briefly on this drainage concern that you have heard about. Mr. Roskelly: If I may, I sort of have a menu here. If we speak of the traffic on Newburgh, I am somewhat shocked over the fact that because four years ago we had approval for a tentative plat as I showed you before, and when we began the first two, the Manor and the Estates, it was requested by us, and then demanded, that we pay for a 12 foot 9 inch slab of concrete to plane Newburgh Road for one half mile from Seven Mile to Curtis, if extended, to the tune of $175,000. Unfortunately, in the last ten years you have Deer Creek being developed, you have Victor, you have all these other areas being developed, but unfortunately we became the tail of the dog. We now are generating another 200 to 300 homes so it was our total obligation to remove the existing curb, put in 14020 another 12 feet 9 inch concrete with new curb and gutter to the tune of $175,000, being told here are your new plats, here is what's going to happen, it is going to help the traffic, and here today we sit with people saying they still have a traffic problem. That one I find very upsetting. Now as far as Margareta Street, I will be very happy to close it. Perhaps I can gain another lot but in the matter of streets and traffic, is it not possible that these people who live on Blue Skies Drive would maybe take the opportunity to use our new streets to get to Newburgh Road rather than go to Seven Mile. I don't think that many of the people moving into this new development are going to be concerned to go over to Blue Skies Drive when they have a beautiful road to go to Newburgh Road. I think it is almost a trade off. As far as the east side goes, we originally had the cul-de-sac at Curtis ending. When I went to Engineering and Planning Departments at this time, it was suggested that Curtis should be pushed through for two reasons. Number one, the water ends there and it has to be looped so that water line that exists on Curtis Road had to be brought through. Secondly, because of the school in this area there is a public right-of-way and a sidewalk that exists that should be accessible to this area, like the situation we had at Western Golf where these people would have to take a bus to the school because there was no walkway. There is a walkway there and it was encouraged by Engineering to open up Curtis Street which we have done. We have certainly not made a direct route. It is indirect and I think that discourages any through traffic trying to avoid the intersection. The items as far as the grading, etc. I think what happens is as a developer we did certain things in the Manor where I would acknowledge on that westerly line of the Manor sub we were having water problems, and that problem arose from the fact that in the golf course there were a lot of field tiles. They were snaked in there in all directions like octopuses and every time they would go to dig somewhere, they would open up these field tiles. Our problem was, and remembering that with this land the grade goes from northwest to southeast corner in a north to southeast direction, there is quite a drop in there, maybe 12 to 15 feet from the top to the bottom. It doesn't look like that but as a result the field tiles were running into this area we were attempting to develop. I kept telling these people yes that will be controlled but, and we did go out and dig a trench and put in tile, but in the interim period these builders went in and perhaps did not control the grade properly, had a little extra dirt and cast it over here and created this berm, which we in turn had to move. Because we had to wait the four years with the water moratorium these people would not have lived with that extra excess water because at the time we place the storm sewer in the balance of this land and drain it out, it will eliminate most of that problem. I guess some of it was there simply because we could not continue development because of the water ban. I am sure the people here that are suffering that consequence aren't too appreciative of that but that is perhaps 14021 a slim, at least fragile, reason for that. As far as the condo to the south, as my memory serves me prior to us even touching that land, there was a low area. I will admit that perhaps with the opening of a lot of these field tiles, what happens is some N"" of the water could have drifted. I would say, as Mr. Papke requested, I would have no problem at the time of engineering, and he is an excellent engineer, to give him a copy of that so he could critique it, although I do not believe that we should be responsible to correct perhaps the inadequate sewer of a condominium site. We certainly will guarantee that no water from our site will go into his system, and for sure we would be able to take some of his water. As far as the price of the homes or style of homes, we have restrictions on now in the Manor and the Estates that require a certain quality and, in fact, the developer or the association has to approve all building plans. I can say that certainly no home that is going to be built there will be of lesser value than the average home that lies in the first two subdivisions. I am trying to chose my words. I do believe they will be in excess of what the existing houses in the Manor and Estates are. I can assure you they will have brick chimneys, they will be brick, they will all be good quality homes. The berm area which they spoke of, one of the problems in placing a berm prior to building is in this specific case we did not have a water supply to water the berm, which in turn is on private property. I suggest in the next one we will operate differently. In fact, we built that berm twice. We built it once, sodded it, and because the homes were built it wasn't watered. It died and i""'' we started all over and reconstructed the entire berm. We will have to take another approach. Other than that I hope I covered most of the comments. Mr. Engebretson: Could you mention where the models will be? Mr. Roskelly: I can't speak for models. I will say this that the idea of a model and opening up the court on Seven Mile Road was to have perhaps a market on Seven Mile as well as on Newburgh Road on the west side. I thought the idea was to perhaps have a model on Seven Mile and a model on Newburgh. I can't answer that. Mr. Engehretson: Bill, when you refer to the two parcels being developed simultaneously, are you referring to being completely built out or are you referring to the infrastructure being put in place? Mr. Roskelly: Usually the infrastructure goes in and at that same time models will begin. I wouldn't say one would be in tandem immediately after this was complete, but perhaps in a six month to a one year period. Mr. Engebretson: There have been so many issues raised here tonight that I don't know how we can possibly deal with all of them. First of all, have we determined that the public has had their say? 14022 Mr. Papke: I would ask a question. His knowledge of the site is such that the surface drains from the north to the south, where is the outlet to phase #1? As I recall, there is an outlet at Newburgh �.. at the first road. That was not large enough. What you put in with the first development did not service everything west and north. Mr. Roskelly: Presently on Newburgh Road there is a big barrel sewer that runs south. You are absolutely right the water runs south and west and we will drain all of our water from that critical pocket on the south side, or your north edge, to the east to Newburgh Road and to the sewer. Mr. Papke: Then I would think that would be one of the first things you would construct, your outlet. Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. One of the questions was about the storm sewer. In this case the storm sewer, whether this is phase #1 or phase #2, would have to be placed in so as to drain and correct the problem in phase #2. Leon Zolkower, Biltmore Properties, 2025 W. Long Lake Road, Troy: Invariably when a new development appears on the scene, there is always a concern by the adjoining home owners as to the quality of the homes, the price range of the homes. Quite correctly they are concerned about whether their values will be maintained, sustained, increased or decreased. We will echo exact provisions of the subdivision restrictions that are on record covering the current subdivisions. Bill has copies of those. We anticipate that we `w will effectively repeat all of the provisions dealing with materials, dealing with minimum home sizes, dealing with lot yard setbacks. Anything that pertains to the quality of the home and the restrictions in the already recorded subdivisions will be reflected in the new subs. We, at this time, and I have to be candid, do not know who the builders will be. We have a cadre of builders, some of which Livonia is familiar with, Curtis Home Builders. They have done an excellent job in Livonia. Biltmore has an excellent record in Livonia. We have done a tremendous amount of subdivisions in Livonia. Unfortunately we ran out of land and we are happy to be back with these two parcels here. The quality of the builders that come on board when we develop a subdivision is good. They enjoy a good reputation. We will not deal with anybody that does not have a good reputation because we are jealous of our reputation and obviously what happens with the finished product at the end reflects on what Biltmore does in the beginning. I want to set people's minds at ease. We will not do anything that will negatively impact our neighbors. Bruce Bonn, 18335 Queensbury: If you do develop the west side, will they keep the barriers up so the construction traffic does not come into where the kids are? 14023 Mr. Engebretson: I think we can promise you that will happen. I really don't think anything will happen tonight. There are too many significant issues raised that need to be investigated thoroughly. They need to be reviewed. Having made the commitment I just did, that will be reflected in the minutes, and while we are looking through the minutes for other points of concern, this one will be noticed also. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivisions #2 and #3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #3-51-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivisions #2 and #3 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 determine to table the Preliminary Plat approval until the study meeting of May 2, 1995. 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 `r. resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivisions #2 and #3 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Engebretson: I think everything here has been covered. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #3-52-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivisions #2 and #3 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Preliminary Plat approval until the study meeting of May 2, 1995. 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 r... Department. 14024 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing portion of the meeting is err concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 699th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 28, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #3-53-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 699th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 28, 1995 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Engebretson ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 700th Regular Meeting held on March 14, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was '*4111' #3-54-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 700th Regular Meeting held on March 14, 1995 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Engebretson ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 371st Special Meeting held on March 21, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #3-55-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 371st Special Meeting held on March 21, 1995 are hereby approved. 14025 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas, McCann ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-8-5 by Ka-De Investments requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to expand the existing office building located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Miller: This is the law office located on Lyndon Road just west of Farmington. The existing building as it is now is 820 square feet. The proposal is to add on a 4,000 square foot addition to the rear of this building. The new building will be brick with an asphalt shingle roof. The existing building will be covered with the same brick so the whole building will look as if it was built at the same time. Parking on site, they are required to have 25 parking spaces; they have 28 so they meat the parking requirement. Landscaping, they are required to have 15%; they have 25% so they meet the landscaping requirement. They are required to have a wall along this property line because this abuts residential, which is the Silver Village for senior Nifty citizens. They are proposing to waive the wall and substitute a greenbelt. The landscape plan shows that. Mr. Engebretson: Anything new Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: No. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Devine, we had a pretty thorough description of this last week. I think you can be as brief or long winded as you care to. Mr. Devine: I have nothing to add but I would answer any questions. Mr. Engebretson: We had a very thorough presentation. It is a very well done, thoughtful plan and I hope we are not being unfair to anyone by not giving you a chance to talk extensively about your new building. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Kavanagh, are you planning to start construction this year? Mr. Kavanagh: Yes. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. TaPine and unanimously approved, it was 14026 #3-56-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-3-8-5 by Ka-De Investments requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to expand the existing office building located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as SD-1 dated 3/1/95 by Kurmas & Associa Ps, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as SD-1 dated 3/20/95 by Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance #543; 5) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-2 dated 3/1/95 by Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to an expansion of a non-conforming building. #1ft'' Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 700th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 28, 1995 was adjourned at 11:59 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION ' James C. McCann, Acting Secretary \"--.04. , { C, Jack ErigPhre -.n, Chairman jg