The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-09-3020712 MINUTES OF THE 873`d PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 873rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William LaPine John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a requeslfor preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-07-01-13 APPLE CREST DENTAL Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 07-01-13 submitted by Eric D. Zylinski, on behalf of Apple Crest Dental, P.L.C., requesting to rezone properly located at 37500 Seven Mile Road on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast I/ of Section 6 from RUFC to OS. 20713 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated July 22, 2003, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required. The proposal is subject to the approval of Wayne County under their Storm Water Management Ordinance and the drive approach to Seven Mile Road must be approved by Wayne County." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. There is a second letter from the Engineering Division, dated August 13, 2003, and reads as follows: "In reviewing the legal description for the subject property, we have noted that the area of the parcel should be 0.99 acres. The balance of the description and the site plan dimensions show are correct as submitted." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The third item is from Soave Bros. Properties, LLC, dated September 23, 2003, and reads as follows: We own two centers on Newburgh Road at Seven Mile Road. We oppose any further rezoning of property at the Seven Mile and Newburgh Road area. Further rezoning will increase the congestion at this comer and become a safety hazard. There are two dentists in the immediate area. Speedway already has two drives to their location. We are going to put a drive out to Seven Mile Road, and Bethany Street leads out to Seven Mile Road. That is four drives in less than 200 feet before this parcel. We tried to get access to Bethany for a drive and the neighbors objected and the City Council denied this proposal. We oppose any further rezoning in this area. There is ample space available now." The letter is signed by Michael Soave and Dominic Soave. Lastly, a letter was submitted by the petitioners, Eric and Judith Zylinski, received by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003, to which was attached a document that included the signatures of persons who were in support of their petition. The document reads as follows: "We, the undersigned, as residents of Livonia, support the rezoning of the property located on the comer of Seven Mile and Bethany in Livonia from Rural Urban Farm to Office." There are 93 signatures on the document. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? 20714 Bryan L. Amann, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48187. Thank you for the opportunity to be here representing Doctors Eric and Judy Zylinski. I am going to let him give a short presentation and then I'm going to follow that up to answer any questions and mention a couple other things. So I will lel him proceed. Eric D. Zylinski, D.D.S., Apple Crest Dental, P.L.C., 13992 Merriman Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening, Planning Board members and residents of Livonia. My name is Eric Zylinski. I'm here also speaking on behalf of my wife, Judy. We are both general dentists in Livonia and have been practicing here for the last nine and a half years. We're here to request rezoning of our property located at 37500 Seven Mile Road. Our current business location no longer meets our needs requiring us to relocate. It's been a longstanding dream to customize an office which will help us to better serve our patients and help project our professional image. It is our desire to relocate our practice to this new location. We are aware of concerns with previous rezoning attempts: first, the strip mall and next the branch bank. Unlike the negative impact of a busy strip mall or a continuously active branch bank with a 24-hour teller and drive through service, a family dental practice has relatively low traffic volume and limited hours of business. We are neighborhood friendly. Our plans are for a owner -occupied professional building with landscaped greenbelts to help blend with the surrounding area. With an owner -occupied building, you can be assured we would lake great pride in maintaining our property. We mailed a letter of introduction to the residents of the neighborhood to the north on Bethany and Northland. We also went door -lo -door on several occasions to meet with them personally. We found the residents to be friendly and generally receptive of the rezoning of this property and generally in support of our project. We circulated a petition to demonstrate the support. We have given you a copy of the petition and the letter of introduction. There were several people who opposed any zoning change. They did indicate, however, that if they were to have a business at this location, ours would be the type of business that they would want. However, they were against any rezoning. The following reasons were given for opposition. (1) Increased traffic from people cutting through the neighborhood to avoid the light at Seven Mile and Newburgh. We believe our business would have a negligible effect on traffic through the neighborhood. Generally speaking, people are going to continue to cul through the neighborhood because they can. (2) If the zoning were 20715 changed, the property could then be sold and rezoned to something more commercial. The Planning Board can better address the question of further rezoning to something more commercial. From our standpoint, we intend for this to be the home of Apple Crest Dental for many years to come. A dental practice requires an expensive infrastructure which prevents it from being relocated frequently. (3) There is an abundance of office space available. Why do we need more? There is very little office space available for sale which meets the specific needs of our business. We require good highway access, first floor accommodations, parking within a few feel of the front door, to name a few. Reasons why this property should be rezoned: First, this is the only residential home left standing on the north side of Seven Mile between 1-275 and Newburgh. Second, Seven Mile has very high traffic volume which poses a danger to residents, especially those with children and pets. Third, this property is located adjacent to a very busy and noisy 24-hour seven day a week operation of the Speedway gas station with its general store. Fourth, break-ins have been a problem with this property. From every vantage point, it is easily cased or staked out from the parking lot of the strip mall, the Speedway gas station and from Seven Mile Road. In closing, when the residents were posed with the question, "Would you want to live at this location?" the overwhelming response was no. "There is loo much traffic on Seven Mile Road and I wouldn't want to live so close to the Speedway gas station." Those few who answered yes qualified their response by saying "I wouldn't mind if I didn't have children or pets" This area has changed greatly since the house on this property was built back in 1930. It no longer is well suited for residential use, and we believe that our proposal represents the best use of this property at this time. Thankyou. Mr. Amann: Thank you, doctor. I just want to take one second to follow-up. When you look at the basic purpose of your zoning ordinance, Article I says to promote public health, safely, morals, convenience, comfort, prosperity, general welfare of the community. It further states that it is intended to protect common rights and interests in the district and have a common unity of purpose in an area. I believe that when you're looking at this parcel, and really the second slide that Mr. Taormina showed, is very demonstrative of this point. The pattern along Seven Mile makes it clear that the time for residential along that area is long gone so there is no practical expectation of any residential use there. So the next best you thing you can do is an office use, particularly one with the commitment of the 20716 doctors here to do an office with a dental practice because of its very low impact and its high standard of appearance. We think the request is consistent with the patterns emerging along Seven Mile, and when you look on the south side of Seven Mile, obviously the amount of office and medical there is just further indication that we believe this is an appropriate use. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to answer any other questions you might have or deal with any other comments. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Does your client own the property atthis time? Mr. Amann: Yes. Mr. LaPine: He is going to have half of the building or more than half? Mr. Amann: Its their desire to grow into the entirety of the space as a medical profession and dental profession. What you have before you is kind of a conceptual site plan. Once they get to the zoning, then they can make the financial commitment to do the detail work of the final site plan, which will then determine the final size of the building and what they can end up with there. So essentially, how much of it he will be using specifically for his practice, how much of it will be room to grow, and those types of things will be determined as part of the site plan process. Mr. LaPine: I guess what I'm getting at is, he's asking for a dental/medical office. Everything is fine with me, his hours and everything is no problem. But I don't know about the medical office. How much of the medical office is going to be a one doctor, two doctors? Are they going to be open later than your hours? Mr. Amann: There are no plans. There are no prospective conversations with any other tenants at this time. Its really their desire to gel their dental practice relocated and then see where they are from there. Mr. LaPine: So are you telling me if we approve this tonight, I can expect only the dental office to be in there and nothing else? Mr. Amann: What I would expect is on the rezoning, you would have a dental office and a dental or medical type practice, but they have to come back before you on site plan; and they're going to 20717 be able to answer those specific types of questions at that time based on what they end up with a footprint. Mr. La Pine: That's fine. That answers my question. Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, where is your practice at the present time? Dr. Zylinski: We are on Merriman Road, one block north of Schoolcraft. Mr. Alanskas: The petitions you have, is this all your customer base that you had sign? Dr. Zylinski: No. Mr. Alanskas: What percent is your customer base? Dr. Zylinski: We approached the neighbors to the north. There's a fair amount that are from ... Mr. Amann: Do you have any customers on that list of petitioners? Dr. Zylinski: Wedo. Mr. Alanskas: What percent? Dr. Zylinski: I couldn't tell you a specific percentage. Mr. Alanskas: Is it 50%? Dr. Zylinski: Its probably more like 60%. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, what does the Future Land Use Plan forecast for this particular properly? Mr. Taormina: This particular property is lowdensity residential. Mr.Shane: Thank you. Mr. McCann: You say your client owns this properly. Are there any contingencies or is he actually the owner at this point? Mr. Amann: He is the owner of the properly. They are the owners of the properly. Both doctors, Judith and Eric. 20718 Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Dr. Patrick Jary, 37573 Northland Drive. As we stated before, one of the gentlemen stated earlier, this area was trying to be rezoned Iasi year fora bank. The issues are generally the same. Regarding the concern of traffic, again, traffic does already cul from Seven Mile to Newburgh and back. It happens fairly frequently. If you live in the subdivision, you can see it happen on a regular basis. Ours is one of the few subdivisions in Livonia that does not have sidewalks. Our streets are fairly narrow. That means in the evening when you take your dog out for a walk, the kids are on their bikes, they're in the street. Adding a business to this corner will increase the traffic flow. To what degree, I do not know but it will increase it, and if it's increased in any way, that's too much. The residents will be the ones suffering from that increase. The property that we're talking about here, if it is rezoned to business, and if the doctors decide to relocate in five, six, seven, eight, nine, len years, its now zoned business, so anything else can gel moved in there. The gentleman beforehand just said that there will be room to grow for more practitioners and medical, dental or what have you. So now that means to me you've got more traffic flow. What are these other practitioners going to be in the future? We don't know that, but the potential is there for more congestion as far as traffic. One of the other quesfions I had about the traffic issue, I think from what I talked to with the doctors, their hours were beginning on Mondays at 8:30 in the morning, which is at the height of rush hour. That's an awful intersection to try and get out at rush hour. Starting to see patients at 8:30 in the morning will not help things, and as I understood it, they see patients every Thursday evening until 7:00 p.m., which again would add to congestion in the streets after-hours. I have some petitions here. I have 27 signatures from Livonia residents within our subdivision that are against this rezoning. The petition stales, "A petition to slop the rezoning of the property located at the corner of Seven Mile Road and Bethany Road. We the undersigned wish to announce our opposition and disagreement as cifizens of the City of Livonia in regards to the proposed rezoning of the aforementioned property from residential status to office space or business status. We do not want any change in rezoning in or near our subdivision." I have 27 of those from our own subdivision. I have another 24 from surrounding residents in Livonia, for a total of 51 Livonia residential who do not want this to happen. If you look at the demographics of the area within about a mile and half of the subject property, there's 20719 about 20 dentists within the area. Six of those dentists are within about half a mile. There is no shortage of dental practices in the area, not to diminish the dental practice, but there are a lot of them in the area. In fact, one of the dentists I talked to, Dr. Neil Blavin, right next to the Secretary of State, he told me that he had called the City Planning Office and the Rezoning Department about a year ago in regards to a building at Seven Mile and Blue Skies, right by Victor Parkway there. That house I guess was up for sale. He called both those offices and asked could it be rezoned. Both the City Planning Office and Rezoning Department told him that under no circumstances would they consider rezoning that residential property to OS as we already have enough OS in Livonia. And that property I'm talking about is about 200 yards down from this property. As far as the availability of property in Livonia already zoned for OS use, last Tuesday I had Coldwell Banker run a real estate search for me. I have 40 pages of office space with 57 individual properties ranging in space from 2,000 square feel on up and some of the larger ones are 26,000 square feel which can be subdivided. So we have an abundance of OS that is already silting idly in Livonia that is not being used, and it seems kind of redundant now to wipe out another home and put in another area for office space. In closing, I'd just like to say I own my own medical practice. I know what it's like to ran a business like that. I wish these dentists nothing but the best in their business; however, myself, my wife, my children, all the people on these petitions live there and that's our home. It is not the home of Apple Crest Dental. We're there all the time and we want to keep it nice. We do not want this rezoned as OS. Thankyou. Cathy Klockner, 37680 Northland Drive. I've lived at this address for eight years. I grew up in Livonia. I lived right across the street on Newburgh Road. My parents, Bill and Mary Lute, still live there. My grandfather also lived there. The Lute family actually has been here over 100 years. So I know this area quite well. I've seen it change from rural farm. I used to chase my Gmmpa's cows down Newburgh when they would gel out. So I've seen what has happened to this area. When I moved back here eight years ago from New Jersey with my three children, I wanted them to know their grandparents. I knew this was a beautiful neighborhood and this is where I wanted to settle. In the eight years I've lived here, we have done nothing but fight the developers to try and keep our neighborhood a neighborhood. It seems like one after another seems to think this is a beautiful opportunity to enhance our neighborhood by ripping down 20720 houses and pulling up strip malls. The house on the corner is a beautiful old home. It's a landmark. Most people know where it is. You say the home by the gas station with a pond and everyone knows where you live. This is the entrance to our neighborhood. Trying to get out onto Newburgh Road is a nightmare. I have kids that have hockey and trying to gel out at 5:00 - 5:30 to lake them to a hockey game ... and this just happened Friday. I had to go down Bethany, turn right to go to Vidor Parkway, turn right, go to Pembroke, to make the light at Newburgh. There was no way I could get through on Newburgh. Traffic was backed up. Now if there's more traffic on that corner, how am I going to gel out? It's impossible. I mean now, with the traffic trying to pull out of the gas station, there's lots of accidents there all the time and near accidents. I've sal there myself for five, six minutes wailing to make a right hand tum. We really would like this to slay zoned residential. There's a lot of talk of who would want to live on a busy road on Seven Mile. Well, heck, right down the street they're building $300,000 - $400,000 homes, right on Seven Mile. Isn't that amazing? People do want to live on Seven Mile. There are problems with this property, but I think that the right person would love to live there. I have many friends who think it's a gorgeous piece of property. I don't think it needs to be rezoned. You need to keep people like myself in this neighbor. We need to have kids that can go to the schools. You're closing schools. Why is that? Because you're rezoning residential properly to commercial. There's just no way this should happen. You should try and hold onto our open spaces and our residential areas. There's plenty of office and commercial areas available. Are our teeth so bad at Seven and Newburgh that we need three dentists? I mean, come on. And in closing I would just like to say that myself and many of my neighbors are against this. We were very nice to these people that came around. They're nice people. If they want to move into our neighborhood, we would welcome them with open arms. We do not want this rezoned. Thank you. Kelly Schwanitz, 37670 Sl. Martins. I'm in support of the dental practice. I think it would be actually beautifying to the neighborhood. I walk my children around that way and we cul down Bethany. I've never cul down in my car through there, but we walk through there because it's really low traffic volume, I think. So I don't know about people cutting through there. Maybe it's during rush hour traffic. I live right off of Newburgh north of Seven Mile and I don't have any traffic problems. I don't have any problem getting out onto my street or pass the gas station. And like I 20721 say, I think it would be the least harmful of options out there as far as big office buildings. Now how many people are coming to a single or two -doctor practice to get their teeth done at any one lime? I don't think like three cars is going to cause some big traffic backup. I mean that seems ridiculous to me. And actually, in walking by there, we go on our bikes or for wagon rides, it really doesn't look that nice right now. That properly has looked really kind of dumpy for the Iasi couple years. The sidewalk is not kept up there. The grass is overgrown. Pickers. I mean, my girls in their sandals can't even walk by there, and the ground is broken. That's the worse looking area on our walk. We've been looking at that kind of vacant looking area with the grass overgrowing weeds for a long time. So I'm in support. Th al's all I have to say. Beverly Prieur, 19261 Newburgh. I am against this, and I think the people silting here on this board should come out and make a survey for themselves and visit each home. The neighbor next door to the future dentists has a couple horses on her properly. So there are a lot of things to lake in reference and a lot of consideration has to be made. I live right next to the Secretary of State and I walk the back streets. And once he goes in, there's going to be no place to walk. That's all I have to say. By the way, I've lived there 32 years. Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Shane: I just wondered if you can give us a sense of your patient density that you expect? How many patients you might have on the site at any one time. Dr. Zylinski: We see an average of 25 patients per day, so it comes out to be about three patients per hour. Mr. Shane: You expect that to increase I presume? Dr. Zylinski: Yeah, it can. Mr. McCann: Mr. Amann, do you have any last comments? Mr. Amann: We appreciate the concerns that were raised. In light of the concerns regarding traffic, I think its not fair to try and depict this parcel as a major contributor to traffic, which is by the way in light of the major developments that are around this in any given area. We don't think they'll be of any impact at all. But 20722 beyond that, we're prepared to answer any other questions you have. Mr. McCann: I dont see any. A motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: Before I make my motion, I would just like to say that this is the third case we've heard on this parcel. This is probably the least intrusive one of the three that we've heard. Eventually, something is going to go there and, to me, it just doesn't seem logical, because of the corner of Newburgh and Seven Mile Road, that a residential house is going to go there. And about the traffic, I live off of Seven Mile Road near Gill Road, and I have as hard a time getting in and out of my subdivision as you people have getting in and out of your area. You tell me any place in Livonia at 8:30 in the morning where you don't have trouble getting out of a subdivision into a main road. We have a lot of traffic in Livonia and, unfortunately, that's what you gel when you live in a city that's as large as Livonia with as many homes as we have. And I think this is probably the best proposal that I've seen since we've been here. Therefore, I'll make an approving motion. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-130-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-07-01-13 submitted by Eric D. Zylinski, on behalf of Apple Crest Dental, P.L.C., requesting to rezone properly located at 37500 Seven Mile Road on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Vidor Parkway in the Southeast % of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-07-01-13 be approved forlhe following reasons: 1. Thal the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office uses to serve the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning will be consistent with other similarly zoned properties within the vicinity of the Seven Mile Road and Newburgh Road intersection; 20723 4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a transitional use between the commercial uses to the east and the proposed multiple family residential to the west and will provide for a buffer between a heavily traveled major thoroughfare to the south and single family residential uses to the north; and 5. That the subject properly has locational advantages for office type uses and services due to its proximity to the k 96/1-275 Freeway. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: I just would like to join Mr. LaPine in this. I believe that it is the least intrusive proposal we've heard. I voted against the prior two. What I like about this one is that it is a dentist office. I don't think it will be adding significantly to traffic. We have a neighborhood that is now partially in support. That was not the case before when there was almost absolute opposition. But I think the item that I like best about this that didn't come up in your presentation is you're going to have 47% landscaping on the property. Essentially you are leaving it as much as you can in its natural stale. We're looking at a 5,800 square foot building as opposed to a 9,500 square fool commercial outlet that was originally proposed. So I really do appreciate the petitioners' interest in remaining in Livonia, and I appreciate your attempt to leave that parcel in as much beauty as possible. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I have a comment for the people in the audience and the neighbors. Mr. Amann bought it up. He said that the environment around this particular home has changed. If it were denied and it went to court, one of the key issues that the court would look at, when this property was built, we're talking about two lane roads that somebody used to chase their cows up and down. The distance around it, there was no commercial. There was no gas station next door. There was no strip mall next door. To the west wasn't this Victor Parkway and new buildings going in, and the Future Land Use Plan does not show any more residential really to that area. You've got a situation where Seven Mile has been widened. It has now encroached upon the home as the traffic has increased. That doesn't happen to your typical normal home. The court would say the 20724 original desirability of this home is not there. It still could be used as a home and that's the question I have. I mean it is on a nice parcel but as the petitioner pointed out, I just wouldn't want to be living with that much money next to the gas station. I think the gas station, the strip mall, the office, everything else is a type of use that is not terrible to be next to, but that gas station, I watch it. It's a very crowded gas station. It's the only one in the area. I was around when they did the remodeling and we tried to gel the lighting cul down. I think I'm going to vole in favor of the rezoning just because I think this use, by retaining 50% of it almost as an open space, is the best we're going to get out of this property. We all live in Livonia. We all do this. I'm kind of tossing back and forth, but I just dont see that we're ever going to gel a better petition than this. Based upon the encroachment of society to this home, I think that it's a reasonable request. Mr. Shane: I, loo, am in favor of this petition, not only because it's a dental office, but because its proposed zoning is office service, which I think is the least objectionable zoning district to go in there other than residential. And I don't think residential is a viable use for that property any longer. What we have to realize is that not only can a dentist office go in there, but other uses in the future could go in there as well. But all those uses in my mind are compatible with the existing districts in the area. Therefore, I have no problem with it. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-08-01-14 DAN Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-01-14, submitted by Narcisa and Emanuel Dan, requesting to rezone properly located on the north side of SchoolcmR Road between Farmington and Brookfield Roads in the Southwest % of Section 22 from RIF to R-1. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated August 22, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division 20725 has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required, and the legal description is correct. There are sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water mains available to serve this project" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from Mr. and Mrs. Meshinski, 32612 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan, dated September 23, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This letter is in response to the Petition 2003-08-01-14, submitted by Naroisa and Emanuel Dan, requesting to split a lot to a one family residential parcel. We feel it will be out of character for our area to go from 100 to 120 foot lots down to 60 x 102 lots. Please keep our area from Brookfield to Farmington Road to stay as it is." The letter is signed by Thomas L. Meshinski and M. Sylvia Meshinski. The next letter is from Mr. and Mrs. Rybinski, 32665 Scone, Livonia, Michigan, dated September 30, 2003, which reads as follows: "With regards to the rezoning of the property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington and Brookfield in the Southwest X of Section 22 from RUF to R-1, 1 feel that not only would this look out of place in our area but would also without a doubt bring our property values down. I'm totally against the rezoning of this property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call." The letter is signed by Leslie and Bob Rybinski. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Emanuel Dan, 32720 SchoolcraR Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Can you tell us what your proposal is? Mr. Dan: Yes. I want to gel it changed to R-1 so I can split it and sell the extra one because I have loo much. When I cul my grass, I spend most of the day cutting it. It's wider than most of the neighbors. I talked to the church pastor and he said he has no objections to it. Their parking lot is behind me and to the side. My immediate neighbor said he wouldn't object. As to the letter to the people in the back of the subdivision, I don't think it would affect them. I'm on a totally different road than they are. So I don't think it would affect anyone and my immediate neighbors have nothing against it. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: How long have you lived there? 20728 Mr. Dan: Two years. Mr. Alanskas: And were you aware when you bought it that you would have a large area of grass to cul? Mr. Dan: I had a lawn mower then that did it, but unfortunately it got stolen. Mr. Alanskas: So you don't have a lawn mower. Thats why it lakes so long for you to cul it? Mr. Dan: Well, I've got a little push one. I had a bigger, more expensive one. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, you know what you're asking us to do here? You're asking us to lake a large RUF lot and convert it to two R -1's. Now, if you look at the homes that are adjacent to SchoolcraR there in Wolfe Gardens and Sieting Gardens, about 80% of those lots in the residential classification are RUF. It doesn't make much sense to take a lot like that and split it into two R-1 lots. In effect, what you're asking us to do is the ultimate in spot zoning. We try to avoid that, at least I do anyways, and I'm sure that's shared by members of this committee. I think you're asking a awful lot. Mr. Dan: I don't think so. I mean the person I would sell it to would probably put a small little ranch there. It would fit perfectly between my ranch house and the other one. I don't think I'm asking loo much. Mr. LaPine: You haven't given us any real reason. The only reason I heard you give us tonight is you don't like culling all the grass. You've only owned it two years. You probably can sell it to somebody who wants a large lot and move to a smaller lot or move to a condominium where you won't have to cul any grass. But to come along and ask us to split this lot at this point when most of the surrounding lots are RUF lots, I think is unreasonable for us and to the people who live in that area who've been there maybe for many, many years who want large lots. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefifion? Sir, do you have any Iasi statements? Is there anything else you want to say? I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 20727 On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-131-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-01-14 submitted by Narcisa and Emanuel Dan requesting to rezone property located on the north side of SchoolcmR Road between Farmington and Brookfield Roads in the Southwest % of Section 22 from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-01-14 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are smaller than the prevailing lot sizes in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the RUF zoning on adjoining properties as well as other similarly situated properties fronting on Schoolcraft Road, both east and west of the subject property; 4. That the proposed change of zoning could result in development of the subject property in a manner that would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the continued use of the subject property for low density residential purposes in conformance with the recommendation of the Future Land Use Plan. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I'm going to vote with the petition to deny, sir, because it would leave one lot that would just be loo small for the area. Where we can't do it by lot split, we have something called spot zoning. Unless there's an undue hardship, we try and avoid spot zoning wherever possible. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with a denying resolution. 20728 ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-08-01-15 GOLF RIDGE PROPERTIES Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion Ronald Schwartz, Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, 6020 W. Maple Road, Suite 503, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. The other members of our management team who are with me tonight are James Deutchman, Antonino Scappaficci and Robert Schwartz. Also with us tonight from a professional team is David Schaff, the project architect, and Larry Sloane representing Glen Eden Memorial Park. I'd just like to begin by saying that the managers of Golf Ridge Properties - and we've had the opportunity to meet at the study session last week with many members of the Planning Commission, which we appreciated - have been actively involved, both individually and as a team in real estate development, planning, construction, and property management for more than 30 years. On the screen before you are some representative projects that we've done recently. We think of ourselves as community builders. We've been in a number of communifies. We take pride in what we have done and we've always completed the projects as projected, as 2003-08-01-15 submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone properly located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the North % of Section 5 from AG to RC. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 5, 2003, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required. The legal description for the parcel as submitted is correct except for the introductory phrase, which should read North X and not North X. Significant off-site water main and sanitary sewer extensions will be required in conjunction with this project." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I understand you have a slide show for us. Ronald Schwartz, Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, 6020 W. Maple Road, Suite 503, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. The other members of our management team who are with me tonight are James Deutchman, Antonino Scappaficci and Robert Schwartz. Also with us tonight from a professional team is David Schaff, the project architect, and Larry Sloane representing Glen Eden Memorial Park. I'd just like to begin by saying that the managers of Golf Ridge Properties - and we've had the opportunity to meet at the study session last week with many members of the Planning Commission, which we appreciated - have been actively involved, both individually and as a team in real estate development, planning, construction, and property management for more than 30 years. On the screen before you are some representative projects that we've done recently. We think of ourselves as community builders. We've been in a number of communifies. We take pride in what we have done and we've always completed the projects as projected, as 20729 promised to a community, and we're proud of the track record. We are property owners in Livonia and we've developed here in the past. David Schaff, Architects and Planners, 9429 Main Street, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. This slide is very similar to what Mr. Taormina had just shown. We won't belabor that. We've highlighted some of the uses around the area, but I think everyone is familiar with that as such right now. But we do have some panoramas of the site, which I'll go through briefly. The first group here is kind of a walk around and view of the properly and its surroundings from the northern section of the property. In the lop slide you see Eight Mile. As you jump down to the second slide, you're actually looking across to the golf course, Whispering Willows. And then the lower slide here is looking north and to the west, which shows a large open area of the property which goes on down to the entrance to Glen Eden. This first slide picks up again from that panorama and that same location, and then the two remaining slides are at the southern end of the property, which shows a little different aspect, a little more wooded area. It again shows some of the roadways in the cemetery which are defining the property lines that are somewhat irregular. And then there are some views on the lowest slide there to Fox Creek Golf Course and onto Bicentennial Park as well as Glen Eden, so it gives you a feel pretty much how untouched itis and how unused it is at this point. Mr Deulchman: As it relates to this particular slide, it shows the open space and this is surrounded basically as indicated by the views to Whispering Willows Golf Course, the dense woodland to the south right here, Fox Creek Golf Course to the south, and obviously Eight Mile Road to the north, the pond to our direct east and then the views of the Glen Eden Memorial Park for the most part, the major portion of the property to the east as well. On the following slide, this is the Livonia Parks and Rec Fall 2003 magazine. It's the actual photocopy of this particular page which shows all the Parks and Rec land within the City. Basically, the Parks and Rec land directly adjacent to the properly turns out to be 23% of the total Parks and Rec land in the City. Forty-eight percent of the Parks and Rec land is located within one mile of our site. So the residential development is within Park and Recreational land. It's really a unique opportunity to develop an over 40 acre site that really was never considered to be available for development at all. The next slide basically recaps some of the points we've mentioned and emphasizes what a unique opportunity this is. 20730 Specifically, the four significant points are the unusual configuration of the property; the fad that it's adjacent to the Parks and Rec land; the Memorial Park owner is involved with the planning and development of this site; and just as a side note, there is no intention for any other land in the Memorial Park to be developed. All the land that they are retaining is intended for their use and is in their master plan for use for internments and for building their mausoleums on it. And the final item is the opportunity to improve a site that was never anticipated to be available. The next slide is the preliminary concept drawing which, in essence, shows the detached single family homes. These are basic ranch homes, 135 units, 3.29 units per acre. There are four park areas within the development as you can probably see based upon the large green space over here and along Eight Mile and also down the southern portion. Connecting walkways throughout the development, and this is very hard to see on the screen because they're in a light yellowish drawing lone, but they basically circulate the entire development and cross throughout. Parking spaces on the site, basically, two private parking spaces per unit plus a two -car garage, and 85 additional off- street parking sites or parking places as well on the site. Just as a final summary of the concept plan, it should be emphasized that this site, in essence, remains with 66% of the site undeveloped, which converts to over 27 acres of open space on this entire site. So the site is rather open in all respects, plus it's surrounded by open space as well. Mr. Shaff: Thank you, Jim. In terms of what we see the units looking like, here are some architectural examples. Again, we're looking for a premium single family detached unit with a full living space on the first floor. In other words, anything that happens on the second floor would be a guest bedroom situation, kind of the empty nester configuration for use. The exteriors also will be brick and have full basements, again with attached two -car garages. You can see by some of these examples which were actually out in the Plymouth area. They work very well in a cohesive design transitional look that carried through the development and provided a very peaceful existence that went well with open space that surrounded both these and the development that we're proposing. Mr. Schwartz: Thank you. I think the next slide will lake us to why we're asking for RC zoning. Jim, do you want to cover that one? 20731 Mr. Deutchman: Basically, as indicated, the RC zoning allows for a very low density development. It offers the great site flexibility. It allows for single family detached homes without clustering per se. It really provides us the best framework for internal open space. It provides for a needed option of residential housing within the City itself, this being a ranch style home with all living oriented towards the first floor with a couple bedrooms upstairs. It is an addition to the continuum of the housing choices offered within the City. And basically, we think it provides an optimum land use for this properly relative to the neighboring sites. Mr. Schwartz: As it has been said a couple limes, this is a wonderful opportunity to take 40 acres in the middle of a lot of park land that, although it's not developed, its not being enjoyed by anyone. It's not open land. Its not accessible to the community, and we're going to open it up with some new residential development, 66% of which will be open space and a very low density development that will be enhanced by all the other open space, hundreds of acres of open space surrounding it. We want to thank you for this opportunity to present to you. We certainly will entertain any questions. We hope that we will gel your recommendation to the Council. Its a great opportunity. As you see before you, I mean we're talking about $40 million of new housing value for the City of Livonia, which translates into roughly $1 million in new property taxes at a time when everybody is in a fiscal crisis and 135 new households. Although we certainly look for residents of Livonia to want to move here, it's still going to bring new people in to buy those other homes as people move and the continuum of housing that Jim talked about. And really a new housing product. Detached condominiums, really single family homes, detached, but a condominium concept where the common areas will be maintained, the exteriors will be maintained and its really a concept that has not been widely used in the City. Its not competing with any other large projects in the City currently and we think for which there is great market demand. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas and Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Alanskas: Through the Chair. Mark, they said if they had a 135 units they would have 64% open space. If we went to Rd, which would yield roughly 102 units, how much open space would we have roughly? More than the 64%. Mr. Taormina: Well, all things being equal, it would be the equivalent are of the 33 or so homes that were shown on the conceptual plan. So 20732 you would probably add to that a couple of thousand of square feet per unit times 33 homes and that would represent the additional open space on the site. Mr. Alanskas: Is the rep from Glen Eden here this evening? Lawrence Sloane. I'm a consultant to Glen Eden Memorial Park, 35667 W. Eight Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I actually reside in Albany, New York. Mr. McCann: Do you have a business address? Mr. Sloane: Yes. 40 Folmsby Drive, Albany, New York. Mr. Alanskas: My notes indicate that you went to a lower bidder? Why did you not go to the higher bidder? If I may ask that. Mr. Sloane: Yeah. That's a fair question. We selected a bidder based on compatibility. The Board of Directors is very concerned and very engaged in what this project would look like, how it would change the vision of the cemetery, how it would change the beautiful entry that we have on Eight Mile Road. So, we mel extensively with the bidders and we selected Kenyon Management Corporation because of their capabilities to deal compatibly with our organization. Mr. Alanskas: As I understand, you'd like to have as much open space still left as possible? Mr. Sloane: To the extent that it makes the project feasible, yes. Mr. Alanskas: Would 102 units make this project feasible, going to an RA? Mr. Sloane: I'm a cemetery consultant, so I think I better ... Mr. Alanskas: I yield to whom I need to ask this question. Mr. Deulchman: No. We don't think 102 units would be sufficient at all. There are some rather significant site development costs in bringing water and sewer to the site. This site was never anticipated to require any City water or sewer because it was always planned for a cemetery. So, in essence, we're bringing water from Newburgh and Eight Mile and looping it all the way down to Fitzgerald and things like that. 20733 Mr. Alanskas: Its just my thought, as one Commissioner, that it's always been open space. To put that many homes here, it's like one of our previous Commissioners would say, it's like putfing three pounds of coffee in a five pound can. Mr. Deutchman: That's not bad. Three pounds of coffee in a five pound can. Its the opposite way. Mr. Alanskas: Its the opposite way. That's right. Thank you for your correction, but I just think the less density we can have there, I think would be much better. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is the representative from Glen Eden here? Where is Glen Eden church located? Is it in Michigan or Detroit? Mr. Sloane: No. Glen Eden Lutheran Memorial Park, Inc. is incorporated as a 501C3 religious organization. It's a church, but it actually only operates the cemetery. The owners of Glen Eden are some 54 Lutheran churches in the community. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The next question, how long have they owned this cemetery? Mr. Sloane: The cemetery was founded in 1929. Mr. LaPine: 1929. Is there a plat in Lansing showing a plat of this whole cemeterywhere all the lots are laid out? Mr. Sloane: As a religious corporation, the Cemetery Commission does not regulate Glen Eden Memorial Park. I do not believe that our maps are on file in Lansing. Mr. LaPine: It was my understanding that unless this whole parcel is platted as six foot lots for burial, that the only portion of that property that is tax exempt from properly taxes is the portion that is platted that shows where the cemetery lots are. Mr. Sloane: We have a physical master plan, correct. Mr. LaPine: A master plan, but does it show where all the lots are? Mr. Sloane: It shows the plan development for the various sections and the cemetery road system and pathway system. I'm not sure all of the future lots were ever numbered or pegged in a sense that it remains open space, but there is a plan for doing that. 20734 Mr. LaPine: But it's not registered with the Slate of Michigan showing where all the lots are? Because its my understanding, what I've been told, and I don't know if this is true or not, that if this parcel is not showing that there are suppose to be cemetery plots there, then over the years the City should have been collecting some taxes on this land. You say you had this since 1929. That's a lot of years. What you're going to sell this property for is probably 100 times what you paid for the whole property. Just as one parcel, it's 40 acres. In the meantime, the City of Livonia hasn't collected any taxes. I think we're entitled to some type of restitution here. Mr. Sloane: I can't respond... Mr. LaPine: And I understand once it's developed, we're going to start collecting taxes, but all the years it's been there as vacant land, you haven't used it. If it was vacant land and you didn't think you were going to need it, you could have sold it 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. In the meantime, it sat there and it just got more valuable, especially if it's rezoned to what you want. Mr. Sloane: Itwasn'tthe inlenlwhen the properlywas acquired to be a ... Mr. LaPine: I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying you should pay all the taxes on that portion from the day you bought it. But I say somewhere along the line, if what I said is true, and I don't know if it's true or not - that's for the City Council to make that decision - but iflhat's true, I lhinklhat somewhere along the line the City should get something out of the selling of this property loo because we haven't collected any taxes over all these years, and you're selling it for considerably a lot more money that you paid for probably the whole parcel. Mr. Deulchman: Lel me help you out if I can. Mr. LaPine, one of the aspects about the historical site itself, part of the Parks and Rec for the City of Livonia came from land that was originally acquired by the cemetery 60, 70, 80 years ago. Actually I believe a portion of the properly in Farmington Hills that makes up, is that Founder's Park or the park across the street on the north side of Eight Mile . was also made up cemetery land that was transferred to the City of Farmington Hills also many, many decades ago. But I think in fairness to the cemetery, they've been a very responsible citizen. Maybe in light of the fact that they are a 501C3 organization, they have some benefits. But they have been in other ways, other than paying taxes, very 20735 responsible and participating in the community and being a forthright participant in the development. Mr. La Pine: And I'm not saying they're weren't. It's probably true, but other developments in the City of Livonia who do the same thing, they've been paying taxes. I'm only saying that there should be some restitution here if these lots weren't really plotted for cemetery lots . What your plans were years ago, maybe some day you were going to sell it off. The other question I have is, the road that goes around it. I was out there today and drove around the road. It's my understanding it's 60 feel to the road to where the development would start. Is there going to be a bene along there to separate that? Mr. Deutchman: Let me speak to that if I may. What we have done with the rezoning petition is, we have requested the entire 41 acres to be rezoned. It's our expectation and our plan to create a barrier between the cemetery and the homes. Specifically, there will be a six fool black vinyl coated chain link fence around the area and then extensive landscaping because the expectation is that the homes, at lead at the first floor level, will look out and they'll see green. They'll see basically the evergreen trees throughout the year. That's the intent so that it will be a very pleasing vista. Mr. Piercecchi: I want to comment. Tonight, you're presenting a concept to us and it was very well done, sir. I appreciate seeing these concepts and some of the questions that were answered, but most of the questions that I have will wait if and when this is passed. The site plan will determine the lot sizes. Our focus here tonight is to determine whether R -C zoning or R-3 or R-4 or R-5, whatever, is the most appropriate and the best fl for that area. That's what we're trying to do here. But I appreciate your concept, but that's our main job here at the City. Is this a good ft? Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Well, obviously we have a few. Please come to either podium and give us your name and address. Dennis Behrendsen, 20012 Wayne Road, Livonia. I'm the present of the Deer Creek Homeowners Association. This is the residential area introduced by Mr. Taormina as Wind Ridge, which it is, but most people know it as Deer Creek. I'm also representing Chestnut Grove. They don't have their association up and running yet. So, those of us that live in Deer Creek, and I hope I'm speaking for all of them as the President, bought our houses believing 20736 that the land that runs all the way from our property to Whispering Willows was cemetery and always would be cemetery. It made a difference in why we chose our property. So our first choice, of course, would be that the land be developed as cemetery gardens as we thought it would be. Now, we're pragmatists as well as other people are, and if Glen Eden chooses to sell the properly, something might have to be done. And I'm a Lutheran, so I guess I have a little stake in the cemetery. So, since its going to be sold at some point probably, we would ask that the Commissioners approve a motion to approve this property as R-4 or R-5. The reasons for this would be that would then make it consistent with zoning changes that have taken place between Gill Road and Newburgh. The Iasi two zoning issues there both came to this Commission and were both approved at R-4. If it's approved as R4, a site plan can't be brought forward as it could under RC, if I understand correctly, with a lot more concentrated housing than is presently proposed. It wouldn't require a water supply, which you may recall was a big issue for Deer Creek for a long time until the City recently invested the money in the valving system that now has our water pressure up. But I think its a little tentative what would happen if another 135 homes is added to it. So the fewer additional homes the better it is for our area as far as water supply. And that also applies to drainage. Not so much the sewer, but the surface drainage is already a problem in Chestnut Grove. The County of Wayne required open drainage settling basins in Chestnut Grove. Those things by their nature are required to hold four feel of water before they drain off. What happens is, it dries out, weeds grow, it doesn't hold water because it's intended to eventually drain. These are actually an eyesore and a problem that the Chestnut Grove developers are struggling with, and we as neighbors there are struggling with. And that same issue is going to exist for this development that's in front of you right now. That's what I have to say. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Gordon Goedde, 20664 Chestnut Circle. I live in Chestnut Grove. This gentleman has pretty much said most of the things I'd like to say. In your words, sir, you said it was incompatible and not in harmony. I think this RC would be incompatible and not in harmony with whafs in the area right now. Most of the areas are R-4. We have no objection if i's going to be R-4. I know most of the adjoining homeowners in the neighboring subdivision wanted us to be R-5 if I'm not mistaken. I also have 20737 a petition from the residents of Chestnut Grove, the few of us that are there, that I'd like to submit to be put into the minutes or whatever for your perusal. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I'm going to close the public hearing. The petitioners have the opportunity to respond or give us any additional information. Mr. Deulchman: If we may, just very briefly, refer to two points which we fell were important as it relates to the storm water retention. We have specifically planned to have actual fountains in these retentions. We feel they are an asset to our development concept. They have become a feature. Unfortunately, we've had the experience of having built development where the engineering required us to have detention. We know about the weeds, and it drives you crazy when the engineers are slamming their fist on the ground and say I want it this way. So, yes, we certainly are aware of that, and we have plans to work with Glen Eden and also enhance their collection of our storm water because it's beneficial for their irrigation purposes. As it relates to the water system, the intention is to run the water all the way from Eight Mile and Newburgh and loop it back into the system. We certainly are aware that on Ellen Street in that development there have been serious water pressure problems. Just for your knowledge, along Eight Mile there is a 42" or 48" main, a massive main that runs up and down. We certainly could adjust for the water pressure, but the City of Detroit Water Board chooses not to let anybody lap into that. Thank you. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. Shane: Due to the discussion on density, etc., I'm going to offer a tabling resolution to a dale certain so that the issue can be discussed some more. I dont think we're at a point where we have a firm idea of what we want to do at this point. Mr. McCann: There is no discussion on a tabling motion. Is there support? Mr. La Pine: I'll support it. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and adopted, it was #09-132-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-01-15 submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, 20738 LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone properly located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the North % of Section 5 from AG to RC, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-08-01- 15 be tabled until the Regular Meeting of October 14, 2003. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, La Pine, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Walsh, Smiley, ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: I think it's an important issue as to the density. My concern also is the unique shape of this parcel. It makes it very difficult to develop, and I think that's something that can be looked at as well. So we will have a Study Meeting on October 7 and a Regular Meeting on October 14. At the Regular Meeting, there will be no audience participation unless there is unanimous consent from the Planning Commission. So we will see you on the 141h. Thankyou. Mr. Piercecchi: In the process, it may be advisable to look at other zoning classifications. Perhaps you can fl less homes in there and still make it a profitable operation - R-3 or R-4. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-08-02-16 MICH ED. CREDIT UNION Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-02-16 submitted by Mark Pugliese, on behalf of Michigan Educational Credit Union, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a credit union with drive-lhru operations on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Linda Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 23. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 20739 Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 3, 2003, revised, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required and the legal description for the parcel as submitted is correct, except that the reference to the Algonquin Park Subdivision should reference recording in Liber 81 of Plats not 18 as shown. There does not appear to be any utility relocations required to construct the building, however, it should be noted that the sanitary lead, while not under the structure, is under the overhang for the southerly drive-through station." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 4, 2003, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Access around the building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-X feet" The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 11, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans regarding a proposal to construct a one-story financial institution with a drive -up canopy. We submit the following recommendations for your consideration: (1) 'Stop' signs posted for traffic exiting onto Middlebelt Road and for traffic exiting the credit union area north into the main driveway. (2) Post height of canopy over the drive-thru lanes. (3) Post 'Exit Only' or 'Do Not Enter' signs for the proposed south driveway to discourage Middlebeff traffic from entering this driveway. Please remind the petitioner that all handicap spaces must be individually posted per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 5, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 28, 2003, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. And lastly, we received a letter tonight from Robert and Pamela Maxwell, 29520 Linda Street, dated September 30, 2003, which reads as follows: We have two major concems about the waiver request to construct the Educational Credit Union on Middlebelt between Five Mile and Linda Avenue. These concerns are harm to the environment 20740 and traffic congestion. Environmental Concerns: (1) Much was made about the wide open spaces in Livonia by all four candidates for mayor. The loss of those wide open spaces is readily apparent on the southwest section of Middlebelt and Five Mile. When we moved to Linda Avenue in 1972, there was no shopping center on the comer. There was no Taco Bell. Then; was no Outback Steakhouse. Then; was no Westbom Market. There were no massive parking lots covering nearly all of that space which was occupied by a gravel company and the Harold Thomas Nursery. (2) With all that space now covered by buildings (many of them empty) and concrete parking lots, how much damage has been done to the balance of nature? To natural drainage? To wildlife? To the threat of global warming? Multiply that loss of open space by the construction for strip malls, national restaurant chains and drugstores on the comers of every major road in Livonia to realize that the few open spaces remaining are our parks and golf courses. Interestingly, if you drive 10 miles west on N. Territorial Road to smell the roses, you will immediately notice the air you breathe is much cleaner. (3) If the Credit Union's drive-thm is scheduled to be situated behind their building and next to our homes, please give some consideration to the exhaust fumes from idling cars waiting in line and the effect of those fumes wafting into our backyards and open windows. Traffic Congestion: Currently it is nigh on impossible to make a left tum onto Middlebeff from Linda Avenue from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Because of all the traffic entering and existing all the commercial establishments previously mentioned, we must take the opposite direction, tum right on Beatrice, right on Five Mile, then left on Middlebelt, It is also nearly impossible and potentially dangerous to attempt a right tum onto Middlebelt from Linda Avenue when services are held at St Genevieve because many parishioners are trying to tum left onto Middlebelt from Jamison along with many visitors to the Middlebelt Nursing Home attempting to tum left from the center lane into the nursing home's entrances. Several serious accidents have already happened at Middlebelt and Linda because of that congestion. The potential for more serious accidents will be increased with additional traffic entering and exiting yet another commercial establishment such as a credit. union. Before the city approves yet another commercial establishment, the Planning Commission and Traffic Safety Department should consider the need for a traffic signal at Middlebelt and Five Mile. One small example: A year or so ago, northbound traffic on Middlebelt was backed up for three blocks waiting for the light to change at Five Mile. Drivers left an opening for someone to exit the Middlebelt Nursing Home 20741 and tum into the southbound center lane when a young employee of Westboro Market, running late to work, used the same center lane northbound at a high speed and crashed into the car exiting the nursing home causing serious injury to the driver." The letter is signed by Robert C. Maxwell and Pamela A. Maxwell. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Pugliese, Michigan Educational Credit Union, 9200 Haggerty Road, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. I'm the Chief Financial Officer of the credit union. Tonight with me I have our architects, Corrado A. Bartoli and Associates. I'll just provide you with a few brief comments and then they can lake over from there. Michigan Educational Credit Union was formerly known as Wayne and Oakland County Teachers Credit Union. We've been a resident in Livonia since 1966 at 9373 Middlebelt. When we opened the office on Middlebell in 1966, the assets of the credit union were $4 million. The most recent count of the assets of that particular branch were over $100 million. In the 38 years that we've been in existence at the 9373 address, the lot and the facility was sufficient for our membership. Now our present lot and the present facility is no longer sufficient for our membership given that the building was constructed over almost 40 years ago. Livonia is an important part of the credit union. We only serve school employees and their families so we don't accept the general public into membership. We want to slay in Livonia. Livonia, like I said, is an important part of the credit union. With that, I'd like to tum it over to our architects, Corrado A. Bartoli and Associates. They can answer any questions. Corrado A. Bartoli, Architect, 47520 Jefferson Avenue, New Baltimore, Michigan 48047. As you see, we brought a rendering of what the facility is going to look like. It's a one-story building, approximately 6,000 square feel. We are going to use limestone base, the brick that you see there, a bronze colored glass, and the lop part will have some dryvil with green shingles. We've tried to landscape the building all around even though there is an eight fool high wall. We've got more landscaping in the greenbelt area before that wall. There is a 10 fool bypass lane and four lanes for drive -up use. The credit union only works from 9:30 to 5:30; it's not open Saturdays or Sundays. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: What is your membership now? 20742 Mr. Pugliese: The number of members? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Pugliese: We have approximately 38,000 members. We have four offices - Livonia, Plymouth, Ann Arbor and Brighton. That's spread out over those four offices. Mr. Alanskas: During the day, roughly how many cars would be going through those four lanes? Mr. Bartoli: Itwould be hard to tell because the existing facility on Middlebell doesn't have a drive-thru. Mr. Alanskas: I understand that. I asked that for a good reason because my daughter lives right behind that wall, and they are going to be very highly impacted. They gave me these questions to ask, besides my own. They were not worried about fumes, but they are worried about noise with the cars. Why do you have to have four lanes? Mr. Pugliese: Our Plymouth office, which is our headquarters office, has six lanes and our Plymouth office in terms of the number of assets is slightly larger than our Livonia office. So by reasoning out or comparison with that building, we chose four drive-lhru lanes. Mr. Alanskas: With four lanes from that wall, you're only going to be 10 feet from that wall. Mr. Bartoli: No. Mr. Alanskas: How many feet are you going to be? Mr. Bartoli: There is 10 feet of a bypass lane. Mr. Alanskas: Right. By the wall, but cars will still be bypassing. Mr. Bartoli: Yes, but the bypass is only for somebody that made a mistake and went into the drive -up and they really did not want to go to the drive -up. That's what a bypass is for. Its not for use per se. Mr. Alanskas: On your drawing, what is the height of the peak of your roof? Is that about 35 feet? Its under 35? So its under a two story home? 20743 Mr. Bartoli: Yes. 32 feel. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: I have a question about the drive lhru. There's four drive-lhru lanes, but the lane closest to the building is for the ATM. Is that right? Mr. Bartoli: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So actually there's only going to be three drive-lhrus where people will be driving through cashing checks and doing things of that nature. Is that all they can do through the drive-ins, strictly cash checks? Mr. Bartoli: Yes, that's all. Mr. LaPine: So there's no other transactions being done. The pass lhru is basically for people who made a mistake and decided they didn't want to go there, or it is possible for somebody to park over here but come around here and go out that way. Mr. Bartoli: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Will the ATM be open 24 hours a day? Mr. Bartoli: Yes, it will. Mr. LaPine: And that's one of the things I like because that's close to the building. I assume that will be lit. Mr. Bartoli: Yes, it is. Mr. Taormina: On the landscape plan, there are several trees proposed along the south property line adjacent to the wall, and those would replace existing relatively mature evergreen trees. Why have you decided to remove the evergreen trees in favor of the smaller ornamental type trees? Mr. Bartoli: This could be revised, but our landscape architect came up with this. We can change some of the trees, but I think a lot of them are close to our driveway. I think that was the reason that they were eliminated. Mr. Taormina: One suggestion is that the curb be shifted to protect the trees as they exist along that property line where feasible, or at a 20744 minimum, identify those trees that can be saved and work with those since they are quite an asset presently along that south wall and offer screening and buffering in that area. Mr. Bartoli: That's why we put more trees and whatnot into that area - to do more buffering. Mr. Alanskas: Could that building be brought out about 10 feel to the north so you have more room in the back for the lanes? Mr. Bartoli: Unfortunately, you can see that we have minimal area before the sidewalk, before the parking. This is existing parking that's there right now. Mr. Alanskas: Could you move @ five feet? Could you move anything away from that south wall so it's further away from that wall? Mr. Bartoli: We looked at it. The best we possibly could do is two or three feel. Mr. Alanskas: Its better than none. Mr. Bartoli: Right. Now to answer your question, from the wall to our canopy line, we are 25 feet. Mr. Alanskas: To the canopy line. Not to your existing outside lane. Mr. Bartoli: No. To the canopy. Mr. Alanskas: But to that lane, how many feel? Twelve feet? Mr. Bartoli: We have 10 feet of the bypass lane. We don't have a scale on it. I can't really tell. Mr. Alanskas: But if you can move the building just even three feel, that's three feel further away from the residents. Three feel is a lot for noise and lighting when they come around that corner. The further away from that wall, the better. So if you could even move it three feel, that would be wonderful. Mr. Bartoli: We can certainly try. Mr. Shane: That three feet might even help preserve some of those existing trees along there because one of the problems when you start to excavate along there, it's going to bother the root system of some of those trees. Maybe that's why the landscape architect 20745 chose to do something else, but if you can save them, save them. Mr. Barloli: We'll certainly try. I'm not in favor of tearing down trees. Mr. McCann: I think its a good use. My family has been members of this credit union because everybody else in my family taught school at one time in Livonia or Dearborn. But you know, when you start laking out trees that are established that the people have wailed for to create a buffer, it's kind of defeating. Are you dead set on four lanes or are three drive-lhru lanes possible? That would solve the problem. Mr. Bartoli: I think really for the credit union to function efficiently and to gel the cars out of there, the less lanes we have, the more they're going to wad, the more noise, the more pollution you're going to have. If we could have 10 lanes, it would be faster. Mr. Alanskas: Thatwoukl be called a speedway. Mr. McCann: I realize there are just certain peak times where you need the extra lanes. Has the credit union ever been open on Saturdays? Mr. Pugliese: Its never been open on Saturdays in the 50 plus years R's been in existence. Mr. McCann: That's got to be a little reassuring with the neighbors. Mr. Pugliese: We're only open from 9:30 to 5:30, so at 6:00, there's no one there. Mr. Walsh: Just a question/observation and then I'm looking forward to hearing any neighborhood comments. There's legislation pending right now in the Slate of Michigan. It's soon to be voted on, if I'm not mistaken, allowing credit unions to broaden their membership. Are you monitoring that legislation? Mr. Pugliese: Yes, we are. And to anticipate the next question, we have no plans to expand our field of membership to the general community. Our vision is to serve school employees and their families. That's what we're best at and that's what we want to slick with. We realize that if we were to be a community chartered institution, that a building like this wouldn't be sufficient for what we would need. So our vision is to slay strictly with school employees and their families. 20746 Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. And you did anticipate my next question. Mr. Alanskas: What are you doing to do with your old building where you are now? Mr. Pugliese: We're going to sell that building as soon as we move into this building. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a tentative buyer for it? Mr. Pugliese: We do not have a tentative buyer. We dont want to gel the cart before the horse here. Until I can get my people and my computers in there, I don't want to even put the building on the market. Mr. Alanskas: How large is your old building? How many square feet is it roughly? Mr. Pugliese: Its a little bit more than 5,000 square feet. Mr. McCann: It does not have drive-thru? Mr. Pugliese: No, it does not. Mr. LaPine: The new Dearborn Federal Savings Bank on Seven Mile and Newburgh, I think they have five drive-lhrus. You have residents right to the east, so I don't think it is going to be that much of a problem. I think Dearborn Federal Savings Bank is open on Saturday and I think they have later hours. The good thing about this, they're open 9:30 to 6:00 and a lot of the neighbors are probably two-family working families gone anyways, although I'd like to hear what the neighbors have to say. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition? James Medo, 29538 Oakley Street. This is the street right next to Linda, so I'm one street in from that proposed properly. I don't see where this is a good use of the properly. It's ridiculous to think that because this is a credit union that somehow its going to benefit the community here. Its only going to benefit certain members because they restrict the membership and they do have a large membership. As a neighbor, I will be unable to use the credit 20747 union. I won't be able to use the facility. Basically, what I will have lost is that green space, all the trees, and to a certain degree, some peace and quiet that we get over the top of that eight fool wall. And I'm sure not many of these individuals here live next to an eight fool wall that's going to try to cram a credit union on a postage stamp size piece of properly with drive-thru lanes right in our backyards. And then try to deal with the fact that there's an empty Arbor drug store probably 50 yards from this space right here that's sal empty for quite some time. Now we have an empty grocery store that's silting empty next to the dollar store over there. Either one of those would be a more beneficial space for the credit union because they would have plenty of access and plenty of parking. Just by the way this site plan looks, they're planning on using most of the Weslborn parking facility to gain entrance to their lot and to gain exit, as well as to probably have shared parking spaces, which goes to show you that this building is way loo large for this piece of properly and is extremely close to the neighborhood which is directly to the south of them. I just don't understand how this is going to work on Middlebell Road, and I know you made mention that traffic is terrible everywhere, but with all the thriving businesses that are on Middlebell Road, specifically the Weslborn Markel with its two entrance and exits, the Taco Bell and the Outback Steakhouse, it is generally ridiculous to even try to think to make turns across traffic onto Middlebell. I know with 38,000 members trying to use this facility at any point in time and then you have the ATM machine that's going to be open 24 hours a day. I know. I'm a credit union member at Dearborn Federal Credit Union. There's a credit union already right there at Five Mile and Middlebelt, and there's another credit union at Five Mile and Farmington, and there's another credit union at Five Mile and Beech. So I don't think we have any more need for a credit union than we do for another drug store on the corner. One of the things that I noticed is when all these petitioners come in and they have these great plans and they show these fantastic buildings and all this great landscaping, it always look good for about the first year, and then two or three years later when the lot is run down and the landscaping is overrun and the walls are starting to crumble down, you never see the guys that are here when they do the petition because they're off somewhere else while the neighborhood is left to deal with the downfalls from the project. So I've noticed that the Livonia City Council has spent the better part of the last two or three years dealing with a piece of property in the Rosedale Gardens area, which the neighborhood and the Councilmembers thoughts was more beneficial to the 20748 neighborhood than it was to a developer. As you know, that is continuing to go on. This is basically the only piece of greenery that these neighbors have on Middlebelt from Linda to Oakley to Barkley to Lori to Lyndon. There is basically nothing in our entire neighborhood unless you go all the way to Roosevelt Elementary where you can even see any kind of a space. And I know there's a lot of neighbors in the neighborhood that walk up to Westborn Markel because that is almost like a little park right there where that greenspace is right now with all of the old trees that have been there for almost forever. It's just unbelievable to think that this large bank building is going to try to gel squeezed on that small property. I am against the waiver use that they're asking for. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I don't know that it's a popular comment, but I'm going to explain something. What we're here for tonight is waiver use. Mr. Taormina, I believe what was approved originally was the Weslborn Market and an 8,000 or 10,000 square fool strip mall on this location. Was it not? Mr. Taormina: The building that was previously approved is actually about 16,000 square feet. Mr. McCann: 16,000. So they've already been approved to put a 16,000 square fool commercial strip mall. Mr. Taormina: Right, but they haven't approved that drive along side. Mr. McCann: No. What they haven't approved is this site. You're correct. They were previously approved to put in a strip mall. What's happened is that because it's a bank, it requires a waiver of use. That's why it's at a public hearing as opposed to just amending a site plan. Mr. Merlo: I thought the waiver was for the drive-in facility. Mr. McCann: That's correct. Mr. Merlo: And it's the drive-in facility that's actually going to infringe on basically that whole properly. Mr. McCann: You're right. Just so we're all on the same page. Thank you. Theodore Milek, 29464 Linda. I've been there for 44 years. I couldn't see everything that's going on with the plan because my property has this wall which has been stated as eight foot. It's really six 20749 fool. My lot is number 7, the fifth house west of Middlebell. The letter that was submitted by me for my neighbor - he lives next door, west of me. My biggest concern is about the exhaust fumes of cars waiting to go through drive-in windows. I don't know where that drive-in window will be. I just couldn't see things. North of us, Taco Bell, that's beyond Westborn towards Five Mile, there are days when we can smell the Taco Bell odors. Now if food odors carry that far, how about these vehicles at four or five limes in length wailing to get to the window? Those exhaust fumes will come toward us, which is not very healthful. That my chief cause. I would like to see the whole complex there either moved out farther towards Five Mile or make use of many of these empty properties we have and strip malls throughout Livonia. This gentleman here mentioned how many credit unions we have in our neighborhood. Why add one more? Thank you. Carol Pooya, 14920 Cavour. A lot of our neighbors on our street, which is just one mile east of Middlebell, are totally against this, not because they are against credit unions but because we're really tired of already playing chicken with cars as we're trying to turn onto Jamison with those cars that are trying to pull into Weslborn Markel. Theoretically, if the bank is talking about putting in four lanes of drive-lhru, then they're anticipating that many cars coming into their facility at any particular time. So you are already talking about traffic four times greater than it is for traffic that is pulling into Westborn. Then you're talking about people who turn onto Jamison because they either live on Cavour or Paderewski or they go to SL Genevieve's, or let's not forget the people who have to turn into the nursing home because they either work there or they're visiting a loved one or a doctor or somebody who has to go to that facility. That is an absolute terrible place. I mean we understand. Right now, we work with it because we like Weslborn. It's kind of nice. Its right there but it is getting to the point where its very aggravating again to try to pull into a turning lane to make a left hand tum onto Jamison. We have cars that are going northbound and try to pull into Weslbom and talk about near accidents. Its actually horrible. And, of course, the whole issue with the pollution, the noise, the sound. The guy in the Mustang who's sifting in the lane wailing to go up to the drive-in. His car is loud. His exhaust is loud. A lot of people don't always drive brand new cars that make no noise or have no exhaust. There's no way. Twenty feet from the wall, you're going to smell it. I worked in the environmental field for many years and I know how this works. So again, I would just like to say please, on behalf of the neighbors who live 20750 in the area, we really don't need any more traffic there than we already have. Thank you. Gerald Curtis, 14901 Cavour. My concern is they have no way of restricting what vehicles go in that lot. I go by this credit union every day down there on Middlebell by West Chicago. There are school busses sifting in that lot going in; they do their transactions. There are dump trucks. There are pickups and everything else in that lot. We're going to end up with the same thing in this situation. I work for the City of Livonia. I drive a school bus. I know what it is. I live one block east on the corner of Jamison and Cavour. The corner of this building comes right out in the center of Jamison. Now, if I'm headed south on Middlebell, its all I can do to turn into Jamison for the simple reason everybody is using that left turn lane to gel into Weslborn Market. Somebody ought to go over there and just look at the traffic situation before they make a decision on anything like this. This is crazy. I have no idea why they even attempted to bring this to you. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Doris Milek, 29484 Linda. My husband spoke before. We've been there 44 years. When Weslborn was approved, they said that they would have a few small buildings there, but we would have a nice big space between the wall and where the buildings were. Now they're going to be right in our backyard. I go out in the backyard. I'll be smelling all those fumes. We're getting older now. We have heart problems. Traffic is terrible. There is no way - no way - we can make a left hand turn onto Middlebelt. Just like the people on the other side, we have the same problem on our side. We're lucky to be able to make a right hand turn once in a while and it isn't at 8:00 or 5:00 at night. It's all day long. You cant make a left hand turn. It's just terrible. And a big building like that, it's just loo big for that small lot. That's all I have to say. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else? I'll close the public hearing. The petitioner has the opportunity to give us any last thoughts. Mr. Pugliese: We've heard what the neighborhood has to say. The credit union wants to be a good neighbor and fully intends to be a good neighbor. In terms of keeping the properly up, which I heard someone may have alluded to, I would just invite anybody to take a look at any of our other offices. Even our office further south on Middlebell Road, I think we've done a pretty good job keeping that properly up with its age. The only thing I can tell folks is that we promise to be a good neighbor. That's it. 20751 Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-133-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-02-16 submitted by Mark Pugliese, on behalf of Michigan Educational Credit Union, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a credit union with drive- lhru operations on properly located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Linda Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 23, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-02- 16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by Corrado A. Bartoli & Associates, Architects, dated August 27, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A-3 prepared by Corrado A. Bartoli & Associates, Architects, dated August 27, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-4 prepared by Corrado A. Bartoli & Associates, Architects, dated August 27, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 7. That the lighting equipment as shown on the Site Plan detail shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be shielded so as to be deflected away from the neighboring residential properties; 20752 8. That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the structure shall have metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 9. That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 11. That the petitioner shall comply with the following stipulation contained in the correspondence dated September 4, 2003 from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division of the Department of Public Safely; Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-% feel; 12. That this approval shall incorporate the following recommendations listed in the correspondence dated September 11, 2003 from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police: "Stop" signs posted for traffic exiling onto Middlebelt Road and for traffic exiling the credit union area north into the main driveway; Post height of canopy over the drive-thm lanes; Post "Exit Only" or 'Do not Enter" signs for the proposed south driveway to discourage Middlebelt traff c from entering this driveway; 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 14. That the building shall be moved north at least three (3) feet with a corresponding shift in the drive -up facilities in 20753 order to widen the greenbelt adjacent to the screening wall and save as many of the existing trees as possible. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I might add this as a comment: I told you my daughter lives right behind this. She's the second house behind this petition, and I'm there between four and five days every week from any hour from 5 until 9 at night, and I have never had a problem turning left onto Middlebell after 5:00. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Just one thing. On item 14, 1 think we should also include that when they move the mature trees, they should try and save as much as possible. Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with that. Mr. McCann: Including moving the building three to five feet or whatever is practical. Mr. Taormina: We'll include language such as: "with the corresponding shift in the drive -up window facilities as well as increase in landscaping along the south property line." Mr. LaPine: Try and maintain as many of the mature trees as we can. Mr. Walsh: I would just like to indicate that I came in here hoping we could gel rid of one of the lanes. I do share the concerns with the 20754 other Planning Commissioners that it's awfully close to the wall. I think the overall size and appearance of the building is much better than what was originally approved, which was a 16,000 square fool commercial facility. But the architect made a very wise comment. The fewer the lanes, the more stacking we'll have. That's a lough nut to crack. You have fewer lanes, you have more cars parked, more pollution and more noise. The reason I say this is, I would encourage the architect and the bank, between now and the Council meeting, to lake a look at it. If there's any way that you think creafively - I'm not an architect or a landscape person - if you could think creatively of ways to further buffer the neighbors, that would be great. I just suggest you lake that in with you to the Council. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? I am going to agree with it. Just as Mr. Walsh said, 16,000 square feel of commercial space means five to eight businesses; five to eight businesses open 7 days a week; five to eight businesses including carry out food and restaurants open until 11:00 at night at limes, taking garbage out in the back at times, storing garbage. I just got to believe that this would be one of the least intrusive uses that we could put in that location. The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-08-02-17 ACCURATE COLLISION Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-02-17 submitted by Dewain Diacono, on behalf of Diacono Enterprises, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing automobile repair facility (Accurate Collision) located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southeast % of Section 27. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 2, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-- 20755 way dedication is required and the legal description for the parcel as submitted is correct. There do not appear to be any utility relocations required to construct the addition." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 4, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition onto the commercial building located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 9, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans to construct an addition onto the existing automobile repair facility. There are 27 parking spaces proposed which requires two handicap parking spaces. The current plan shows only one handicap parking space. Each handicap space must be property posted per city ordinance. We have no further recommendations for this petition." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 15, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 28, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This waiver use Petition will require the following variances frem the Zoning Board of Appeals: (a) Deficient north side -yard setback. 20 feet required, 0 feet proposed. (b) Deficient rear -yard setback. 20 feet required, 0 feet proposed. (c) Deficient south side -yard setback abutting a street. Twenty-five feet required, 16 feet proposed. (d) Deficient south parking lot aisle width. Twenty-two feet required, 19.6 feet proposed. (e) Deficient frem parking lot aisle width. Eighteen feet required with one-way traffic, proposed is approximately 12 feet width with two-way limited traffic. (2) This site has a pre-existing deficient front yard. (3) The landscaping provided does not meet the 15% minimum requirement. (4) The parking lot striping must be double striped and the accessible parking should be correctly sized. an eight foot wide space with an eight foot wide access aisle (all property marked and signed also). This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dewain Diacono, Diacono Enterprises, LLC., 2663 Canal, Walled Lake, Michigan 48390. 1 am the owner and operator of Accurate Collision, Diacono Enterprises. I'm here today to try and expand the 20756 building for the need of not just for myself and my customers, but a demand of my biggest suppliers, which are the insurance companies on demand of speed of the repairs to facilitate their vehicles and the process of getting the cars cones quicker on a timely basis. With the amount of business we have right now, there's not enough space for the demand. We are a very busy shop. We've been in the city for just over 11 years. I dont want to be moving out of the city. That's a big problem here because I was pretty much raised in the City of Livonia and I have a very large clientele here in the city. I understand about the landscaping up front. My biggest problem was parking too. I am a land locked piece of parcel. I've been trying to purchase extra room all around my area there. Nobody is really interested in giving some land up. There's a very large parcel on the north side of me, but I can't get them to budge on that. So I don't have any other choice but use the front for parking. Also, looking at the other buildings around my parcel, I don't know how old your ordinance is for the amount of landscaping that is supposed to be in front of the building, but there's been quite a few new business that have been opened up within the last few years all around my company and they dont even have landscaping. At least I propose flower beds, trees, bushes and, yes, parking. But everybody puts out parking. The other shops around me, they don't even have landscaping. So I think I conform to the City of Livonia a lot more than the newer companies that are in my area which are only a year or two old. At that, I can't do much more about it. The biggest problem why I paved the front of the building was, there's a very large manhole in front of my building that Ameritech or SBC owns and they need to get in there quite a few times per month. It was a green belt area and I needed to do something with that because every time they came in to service this mahhole, all twelve months out of the year, they'll destroy the grass and the greenbelt. I live there basically. I'm there more than 40 hours a week. You want your place of business to be just like your home - looks, appearance, the whole shot. So I had to make a judgment call and say I need to do something. I cant keep on trying to get ahold of Ameritech or SBC to try to repair the lawn area. So I went ahead and paved it. It gave them an apron, an approach where they can land their trucks and do the repair they have to do in that manhole at least two to three times a month. I am not realistically the end unit on Merriman. Our address is 12375 but there is one more building that is on the north side of me, which has an address of 12385 Merriman, which is Standard Federal Bank. They don't even have an entrance on Merriman. Their entrance is off of Allied Drive. I 20757 have their customers driving up that lawn to get to their place. This is crazy. Their address states a Merriman Road address and they dont even have a Merriman Road apron or approach. So there were a lot of problems there. That's why we ended up doing what we did with that front yard. Other than that. the biggest thing is the demand for the customers to get the cars done quicker. The demand is really great out there, not just for the customers but the insurance companies, which is a big part of my business. Probably about 90% of my business is insurance work. So that's all I can really say. I do need the space. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mrs. Smiley: Are you going to have additional employees then? Mr. Diacono: No, there will be the same amount of employees. My problem is parts take time to get. It's not a one day thing. It's not parts on demand. I wait a lot of time for parts. I can't move cars. I'd rather keep them inside the building. So all my technicians' toolboxes are on wheels; they just roll away to the next vehicle. That's what goes on there. So, yes, they are packed. I can't move them. Sometimes they sit therefor three weeks. Nothing I can do about it. That's a dealership issue. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Are there any last comments? Mr. Alanskas: I know when Mr. Diacono came before us originally, we had put in our approving resolution that he could not have any cars parked outside, and he has really lived up to that. He's always brought them inside so he does not have a problem with vehicles outside. I've been a frequent customer myself. He does a great job with getting cars out and that landscaping in front was always beautiful until you had the problem with those two companies. I commend you for that. Mr. Diacono: Oh, thank you. I try to do the best I can. I want to make it look good. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. 20758 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-134-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-02-17 submitted by Dewain Diacono, on behalf of Diacono Enterprises, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing automobile repair facility (Accurate Collision) located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southeast ''/ of Section 27, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003- 08-02-17 00308-02-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 3 prepared by Sheppard Engineering, dated August 27, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet 3 of 3 prepared by Sheppard Engineering, dated August 27, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the trash storage area shall be constructed of concrete block to match the building and with metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 4. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use; 5. That the parking provided on this site shall be double striped; 6. That two handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as required and these spaces shall be properly sized, marked and signed; 7. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to a nonconforming building, deficient setbacks (north side yard, rear yard and south side yard), deficient south parking lot aisle width, deficient front parking lot aisle width, and shall be subject to any conditions related thereto; and 20759 8. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved 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 Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. Thatthesubject propertyhas the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-08-02-18 GUILIO'S RESTORANTE Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next dem on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-02-18 submitted by Giulio Ledda, on behalf of Italian Acquisition Restaurant, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a seating capacity of 124 seats (Giulio's Resloranle Italiano) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road (31735 Plymouth Road) between Auburndale and Berwick Avenues in the Northeast''/. of Section 34. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 4, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering 20760 Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of- way dedication is required and the legal description for the parcel as submitted is correct." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 4, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a full service restaurant on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 11, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a full service restaurant. The 52 proposed parking spaces do not meet the requirement of 70 parking spaces. The two parking spaces marked as barrier free must be individually posted as handicap parking spaces per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 5, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September Z 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition is a rebuild as a previously existing non -conforming building and site that was more than 50% destroyed by fire and thus lost its exception(s). This Petition will require the following variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to reconstruct and operate: (a) Deficient number of parking spaces, (b) Deficient size (length and width) of parking spaces, (c) Deficient width of parking aisles, (d) To operate a full services restaurant in a C-1 District, (e) Deficient front yard setback (75 feet required); (f) Deficient side yard setback (25 feet required); (2) The proposal does not specify changes in the asphalt parking lot, however, the parking area needs maintenance, repair, some repaving and resealing, (3) The parking area requires double striping, (4) The landscaping does not meet the 15% standard, (5) No signage has been reviewed." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The Iasi letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated September 24, 2003, and reads as follows: At the 150'h Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on September 18, 2003, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. #2003-34 Resolved, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve in concept the proposed construction of a new restaurant as proposed by Giulio Ledda, on behalf of Italian Acquisition 20781 Restaurant, LLC, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances, as such may be modified by action of the Planning Commission, ZBA and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, Plymouth Road Development Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Erich J. D'Andrea, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. With us this evening is Tom Pallos, who is the architect. To the extent there are specific questions for him, please feel free to ask. I'd like to thank everybody for the opportunity to introduce to you what we believe will be a continuation of a longstanding tradition in this location of excellent Italian food. It's been historically, as many of you know, known as DePalma's. It did change hands over the last few years and we expect that Giulio's will reflect the management culture that we were used to at the previous DePalma's. It will be in a new building that will really add quite a bit to Plymouth Road. Specifically, I'd like to point out that there's going to be new blue glass that will go in the windows. One thing that is a big change from the previous DePalma's is that originally the entrance was on the north side. Giulio's will have an entrance on the east side which, as it relates to the parking, I think will deal with some of the issues because to the extent that we have heavy days - Thursday, Friday, Saturday - I think there will be some potential opportunities to use valet to deal with some of the parking issues. It is going to be an establishment that I think will really reflect well on Plymouth Road and be a great addition to the community on Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I've got so many site plans I dont know what you're doing. You've changed your elevations two or three times. Is this your final change in your site plans? First of all, you had the windows in the front and then you look them out. Now you're pulling them back in. Mr. D'Andrea: Is that one dated 9/23? Mr. Alanskas: I don't know. I've got so many here I don't know what you're doing. I've got three of them here. And the structure of the outside of the building, you've changed what you're going to do. 20762 Mr. D'Andrea: This is the final elevation. Mr. Alanskas: So you are going to have the windows in the front. Mr. D'Andrea: Yes. The two windows in the front facing the north side. That's correct. Mr. Alanskas: And you're putting granite instead of what you had originally on the bottom? Mr. D'Andrea: On the bottom, there will be, yes, a granite stone and through the lop, there actually will be a tile. Mr. Alanskas: Now, what color are these tiles going to be? Is it going to be a red or a brown? Mr. D'Andrea: Actually, we have a sample of the files here tonight. Mr. McCann: Okay, good. Why don't you bring those out? Mr. D'Andrea: This is the marble sample. This is actually what will be going on. Mr. Alanskas: Is that green? From the lights here, we can't tell. Is that a green? Mr. D'Andrea: What color would you call that, Tom? Tom Pallos: A chocolate fudge. Mr. McCann: You're going to have to go up to the microphone, sir. Chocolate fudge is what he was saying. Mr. Pallos: Its kind of like a chocolate fudge sundae. You could eat it. It's edible. Mr. McCann: From here, its kind of gray black. Mr. Pallos: It depends on how the light falls on it. It changes quite a bit because its highly polished. Mr. McCann: Do you have some of the brick sample as well? Mr. D'Andrea: Absolutely. This is a sample of the granite polished black that will be on the lower level. 20763 Mr. McCann: If you put it right up against the drawing, then the camera can get it. That's perfect. Mr. Pallos: Here is a sample of the brick. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a shingle roof? Will it be all shingles? Mr. D'Andrea: We actually have a sample of that for you also. Mr. Pallos: The shingle roof is a heavy duty shingle. It's called a slate. It kind of looks like slate. That's an example of what it would look like. Mr. McCann: Shingles are light, aren't they? Mr. Alanskas: That's a dark gray? Mr. D'Andrea: Its closer to a gray this time. Mr. Pallos: Kind of a brown with little specks of blue in it. Mr. Alanskas: Now could you explain where you're going to put that dumpsler in the back of the building? That's a big concern with the Commission. Mr. McCann: Do you have the plans you could put up on the board, Bill? Mr. Alanskas: I believe it's going to be at the south end of the building going towards the east side of the building. Mr. D'Andrea: The dumpster will be located ... Mr. Alanskas: The opening will be facing to the east so a truck can come in there? Mr. D'Andrea: That's correct. Whether the truck comes through the one-way and backs out... Mr. Alanskas: But if they come through, they have to swing into the parking lot to turn around. Mr. D'Andrea: Actually, I don't think so. Mr. Alanskas: There's not enough space there. 20764 Mr. D'Andrea: It's a slight turn into the parking lot and the dumpsler will be on wheels, so I don't think that is going to be a difficult task to undertake. And actually, if you want to look at this, this is a great improvement over what was there before. Il was an open space and it was essentially hanging out to the alley. Now it's enclosed and really I think makes the back portion of the properly look much better. Mr. Alanskas: Through the Chair. Mark, if that dumpsler comes in from the west side to the alley, won't they have to tum around to pick r up? Mr. McCann: Is it a one-way alley? Mr. Taormina: It is east only. Mr. Alanskas: So he'll have to come in and swing around to pick it up. Mr. Taormina: They'd have to come in off of Plymouth because it's going to be one way directional traffic. It depends on what time the dumpsler is going to be picked up. In this particular case, because it's a relatively small container, it's going to have to be picked up frequently. It looks like they're going to have to enter off Plymouth Road to access it unless it's something that can be wheeled out, and then picked up from the alley and put back into its enclosure. That would be the other option. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Shane: Are you going to have mechanical units on the building? Mr. D'Andrea: There will be mechanical units on the lop. You can see right here, there's actually a dolled line that indicates where the mechanical units will be, but they will be in a concave that will not actually be exposed on that portion of the roof. Mr. Shane: Okay. Mr. LaPine: I have no problem with the project except with the parking. You've got some parking spaces that are 8 fool, some that are 9.6, some that are 9.4, then your driveways are narrow. That's a real problem with me. I think we have an opportunity now that the building has been demolished. Maybe we're going to have to make this building a little smaller so we can gel the parking to be more compatible to what our ordinance says. Now let me ask you a question. Over on the side, you've got 10 parking 20765 spaces dedicated to reconstruction of the restaurant. What does that mean? Mr. D'Andrea: That means that we have had some discussions with the business in that location and they are willing to obviously allow us to use this. I'd just like to remind everybody that this business has gone on for 25 years with this amount of parking, and it is something that historically we've been able to deal with. It was dealt with by DePalma's. I think it will continue to be dealt with. My concern about discussions of reducing the size of the building relates to the viability of the business. I think that means fewer seats, and I think that could have a detrimental effect on the business. Mr. LaPine: Well, I think it's detrimental to the business loo when you have parking spaces that don't correspond to our ordinance. Because the building has been demolished, I think this is an opportunity for us to bring this site up to code. I'm not saying they all have to be 10 feel wide, but there's got to be some way that we can bring this site to be more in compliance with our ordinance. There's loo many variances needed on the parking. Mark, lel me ask you about these 10 parking spaces that supposedly are going to be dedicated. Is that included in the total parking? Are they using that as part of their total parking, plus the eight spaces they're going to use in the city -owned parking spot? Mr. Taormina: No. The city -owned spaces are not included, but the 10 spaces referred to by Mr. D'Andrea are included in the total count. Mr. LaPine: Before we can consider that as part of the parking, we have to have some kind of legal agreement between them and the other partner. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. It is my understanding that's being secured right now bylhe applicant. Mr. LaPine: I know I asked this at the study session, but I'll ask one more time: I know at one time there was a possibility that the 20 fool public alley was going to be vacated and De Palma's was trying to gel the whole 20 feet. Has that just gone by the wayside? That will never happen? Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that the previous attempt to vacate a portion of the alley adjacent to this property failed primarily because of the need for public services and public safety to 20766 access that alleyway. So it's not likely that we will see that alley vacated, and it's not being requested as part of this petition. Mr. La Pine: That's my biggest concern. Maybe I'm the only one that worries about that. I used to go to DePalma's all the time. Its one of my favorite Italian restaurants in Livonia. And I always didn't like the parking there. Mr. Alanskas: How about the valet parking that you're referring to? How would that work? Mr. D'Andrea: That is not something we've totally worked through, but we're trying to see if there are some options where we could valet and possibly have the valet people run the cars over to the municipal parking. Mr. Alanskas: That's still onlylen spaces. Mr. D'Andrea: No, actually, I think .... these spaces relate to the employees. The employees will be parking in the municipal parking, so ... Mr. Alanskas: Are they going to park there in the wintertime when it's real cold and they don't want to walk that far to the restaurant? Mr. D'Andrea: I assure you that the boss will be able to tell them that they're going to park across the street. Mr. Alanskas: Because I go there myself a lot. I did when DeVilo had d. I always had a problem parking a vehicle there especially on a Friday or Saturday night. I mean if you don't gel there before 5:00, you can't gel in that building. Mr. D'Andrea: And as I say, I think that looking at the valet option may deal with your concern in terms of getting in the building. Mr. Alanskas: Buttheystill need to pullhe carsomewhere. Mr. D'Andrea: We need to put the car somewhere and that's something that we're working through right now. We're going to try and be as creative as we can with that. Mr. Alanskas: I just wonder, if you're going to have valet parking, could you possibly rent some space across the street and have them park some cars across the street? 20767 Mr. D'Andrea: That is an option, and I said we haven't finalized that, but that is certainly something that we're looking at. I think that is something that could be viable. Mr. Alanskas: I would think, as one Commissioner, that would be very good if you could do that. Mr. D'Andrea: And the valet would be during the peak hours to deal with the Fridays and Saturdays, so that might be something we'd like to see happen. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I will close the public hearing. Are there any last comments from the petitioner? Mr. D'Andrea: No. Mr. McCann: Any last comments from the Commissioners? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-02-18 submitted by Giulio Ledda, on behalf of Italian Acquisition Restaurant, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a seating capacity of 124 seals (Giulio's Restorante Italiano) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road (31735 Plymouth Road) between Auburndale and Berwick Avenues in the Northeast % of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-02- 18 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan prepared by Pallos Architects, dated September 23, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations Plan prepared by Pallos Architects, dated September 30, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 20768 4. That the dumpster screen wall shall be constructed as shown on the building elevations plan with brick to match the building and with metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 5. That all lighting equipment shall be shielded so as to be deflected away from the adjacent properties and roadway and such equipment shall not exceed 20 feel in height above grade; 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 7. That all off-street parking spaces provided on this site shall be double striped; 8. That the two parking spaces marked as barrier free shall be individually posted as handicap parking spaces per City ordinance; 9. That the following issue specified in the correspondence dated September 5, 2003 from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction; The parking area needs maintenance, repair, some repaving and resealing; 10. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient number of parking spaces, deficient size of parking spaces, deficient width of parking aisles, deficient front and side yard setbacks, and shall be subject to any conditions related thereto; 11. That the maximum seating capacity shall be established as 124 seats, provided that the 30 seat limitation for a restaurant in a C-1 district is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; and 12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 20769 Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there anydiscussion? Mr. Alanskas: I would like to make a substitute resolution to table and I'll tell you why. That restaurant has always been a good restaurant for people to go in and sit at the bar, and they had a least 12 seats. If you have 12 people going in there and sitting at the bar, that's 12 spaces they've taken up for people who want to come in and have dinner. I would rather, if we could, table this until the petitioner can come back and give us a better plan in regards to this parking problem. I think right now, for their sake as a new restaurant, they want to have people come in there and take care of them and get them out of there. And until they gel this parking situation taken care of or solved, it's going to be bad for the City and bad for them. So I'd like to give a substitute tabling resolution to a date uncertain. Mr. McCann: The Council was willing to take this if we waived the seven days if it went beyond, so if there is need to table it, I would ask that we put it on the next agenda that's available. Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with that as long as the petitioner comes back before us with some kind of a plan for their parking and this valet thing to take care of that situation. Mr. McCann: I think that would be the 14th. Correct, Mark? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. McCann: Please call the roll. 20770 On a motion by Mr. Alan skas, seconded by Mr. La Pine, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-02-18 submitted by Giulio Ledda, on behalf of Italian Acquisition Restaurant, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a sealing capacity of 124 seals (Giulio's Resloranle Italiano) on properly located on the south side of Plymouth Road (31735 Plymouth Road) between Auburndale and Berwick Avenues in the Northeast % of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-08-02-18 be tabled until October 14, 2003. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi NAYS: Smiley, Shane, Walsh, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there an alternative motion? Mr. Walsh: If I may, I just want to make note. I was handed a note from a Mr. Adam Keppa who had to leave earlier tonight, and he had hoped that we would address the parking issue and had suggested tabling. I fell comfortable with the plan that was presented. There are 53 spaces with an additional 8 spaces going elsewhere off site. They were required to have 62 spaces, and I think they are making efforts to do some valet and other things. The fact of the matter is, they are going to need ZBA approval for the deficiencies, so I was very comfortable with what they had to say tonight and also comfortable with the fact that the ZBA will have a chance to lake a look at that. Mr. Piercecchi: Shall I call the roll for the original motion, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: Unless there is other discussion, yes, call the roll. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-135-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-02-18 submitted by Giulio Ledda, on behalf 20771 of Italian Acquisifion Restaurant, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a seating capacity of 124 seats (Giulio's Restorente Italiano) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road (31735 Plymouth Road) between Auburndale and Berwick Avenues in the Northeast % of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-02- 18 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan prepared by Pallos Architects, dated September 23, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations Plan prepared by Pallos Architects, dated September 30, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 4. That the dumpster screen wall shall be constructed as shown on the building elevations plan with brick to match the building and with metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 5. That all lighting equipment shall be shielded so as to be deflected away from the adjacent properties and roadway and such equipment shall not exceed 20 feet in height above grade; 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 7. That all off-street parking spaces provided on this site shall be double striped; 8. That the two parking spaces marked as barrier free shall be individually posted as handicap parking spaces per City ordinance; 9. That the following issue specified in the correspondence dated September 5, 2003 from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction; 20772 The parking area needs maintenance, repair, some repaving and resealing; 10. That this approval is subject to the pefitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient number of parking spaces, deficient size of parking spaces, deficient width of parking aisles, deficient front and side yard setbacks, and shall be subject to any conditions related thereto; 11. That the maximum sealing capacity shall be established as 124 seats, provided that the 30 seal limitation for a restaurant in a G7 district is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; and 12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Shane, Smiley, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20773 Mr. Piercecchi: Do you want the seven day waiver? Mr. McCann: Now, there is a petition for a seven day waiver. Is that right, Eric? Mr. D'Andrea: That is correct. Mr. McCann: You're asking to have that waived? It is my understanding that Mr. Taormina has talked to Council President Jack Engrebrelson. He has agreed that it would benefit them. I know there is some site construction they're hoping to get in before the winter falls and that the Council has agreed to accommodate them if we waive the seven day provision. Were there any other reasons that you're aware of? Mr. D'Andrea: That was the main reason that we'd like to get in as quickly as possible and get the restaurant open as quickly as possible. Mr. Piercecchi: You said the Council approved this also? I'll offer the motion. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, it was #09-136-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2003-08-02- 18 submitted by Giulio Ledda, on behalf of Italian Acquisition Restaurant, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a seating capacity of 124 seals (Giulio's Resloranle Italiano) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road (31735 Plymouth Road) between Auburndale and Berwick Avenues in the Northeast % of Section 34. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, Smiley, Walsh, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, La Pine ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20774 ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-08-03-01 SCHWANITZ VACATING Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-03-01, submitted by Kelly Schwanitz requesting to vacate four (4') feet of a len (10') fool wide sewer easement to accommodate the construction of a patio adjacent to the rear door which exists towards the west side of the properly of the home located at 37670 St. Marlins on the north side of Sl. Martins west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 6. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 22, 2003, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required and the legal description for the parcel as submitted is connect. The following legal description should be used for the portion of the parcel to be vacated." The Engineering Division has provided a legal description that would vacate a 4 fool by 30 fool area of the subject easement. The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next item is from J. J. Development, Inc., dated September 23, 2003, which reads as follows: J.J. Development has no objection to the petitioner's request to vacate four feet of the easement in question. The sewer that we installed to service the professional buildings has been touble free for years. It is unlikely that this sewer line will ever fail. However, should it ever need maintenance, there would still be ample mom in which to perform an excavation in close proximity to the patio. The patio they intend to build is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood and will most definitely enhance the value of the surrounding area. We strongly urge you to approve the petitioner's request for all the obvious reasons." The letter is signed by Joseph Trupiano, Jr., President, J.J. Development, Inc. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Kelly Schwanitz, 37670 St. Martins, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I did receive the letter that was sent by the Engineering Division to the City 20775 Council regarding if there was a problem that the repair would be my responsibility. Its my understanding that if we're to construct the patio without footings, a patio that wouldn't need that, we could put it anywhere on that easement. I don't understand that if we were to do that and the City had to come in and repair that sewer, that if there was damage, the City would be responsible, but since we're getting this portion vacated, we become responsible. I was under the impression that we were getting it vacated for that reason, to make that usable. Do you understand what I'm saying? Mr. McCann: Yes. I'm trying to formulate an answer for you. Ms. Schwanitz: Now, I could put a fence on the property line. Mr. McCann: That's generally not an issue before us. That's before the Engineering and Law Departments. Mr. Taormina, have you formulated a response to that? Mr. Taormina: I know they have done this in the past. I was not aware that the structure was not going to have a footing until Ms. Schwanitz just mentioned the fact. I thought it was going to have a footing. Ms. Schwanitz: It is. It will, and that's why we're petitioning. Mr. Taormina: Other than the additional waiver of liability, I guess its something that the Engineering Division and the Law Department feel is necessary, even in connection with the vacating. Ms. Schwanitz: Is this typical or is this something that happens depending on the situation? Mr. Taormina: I think this is a policy that they have used in the past. Mr. McCann: Do you still want to go forward with the vacating petition? Ms. Schwanitz: Yes, Ido. Mr. LaPine: This isn't the first time this has come up. The problem is we're giving you 10 feel of property, but we still may have to go into that sewer. So if we didn't give you that and we had to go into the sewer, it would be our responsibility if something was damaged. But now that you're going to have it, you've got to sign a waiver that if they have to come in and tear out part of that patio to repair the sewer, you have to pay for it. 20776 Ms. Schwanitz: I understand what you're saying. It's also my understanding that the State regulates that there must be at least 12 feel between both properties in order to maintain that sewer. If we were given the four feel, we would still have 16 feel there to work with. The chances are really small but I'm just afraid of that if City workers were to come in, they wouldn't acknowledge the fad that it was our responsibility and maybe not be as careful or maybe not use the extra room that they have in the adjoining property. Mr. McCann: But unfortunately, that's not a policy we get to set at this Board. Ms. Schwanitz: I golcha. Mr. Shane: I just want to make the point that even though there is 16 feet and you only need 12, it really depends on where that sewer is located. It could be on one side or the other; it could be in the center. I don't know. So to the extent that ifs close to you, there may be some damage. If it's on the other side, maybe not. It just depends on what they have to do and where its located. They have to cover themselves. Mr. Alanskas: On your drawing, you have new plantings. What kind of plantings are you putting there? The picture is different. Ms. Schwanitz: Plantings? Mr. Alanskas: New plantings? What is it? Ms. Schwanitz: You know, we haven't picked out the landscaping. Mr. Alanskas: Are those trees or bushes? Ms. Schwanitz: I think mostly tall bushes. I think we want to get a little cover. Actually, that's where the sun ... Mr. Alanskas: Its a different picture than what I've seen in the past. I was wondering what it was. Okay. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I think we've lost the rest of our audience. I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 20777 On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-137-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-08-03-01 submitted by Kelly Schwanitz requesting to vacate four (4') feel of a len (10') fool wide sewer easement to accommodate the construction of a pato adjacent to the rear door which exists towards the west side of the properly of the home located at 37670 SL Martins on the north side of Sl. Martins west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-03-01 be approved, including the vacating of a portion of the subject easement as specified by the Engineering Division in their letter dated August 22, 2003, for the following reasons: 1. That the Engineering Division has no objections to the vacating of the specified portion of the subject easement; 2. That the land area involved in this vacating request can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner if unencumbered by the easement; and 3. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #8 PETITION 2003-06-06-04 SIGN ORDINANCE Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-06-06-04, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #312-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50 of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make various changes to the Sign Ordinance. 20778 Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment would change various subsections of Section 18.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance. Many of the changes are designed to eliminate content -specific restrictions which our Law Departmentfeels are unconstitutional and could leave the City vulnerable to costly litigation. In addition to these, the proposed language amendments include a number of changes relating to revised and/or new definitions of terms, the use of window neon out- lining, the use of pennants and banners, signs in OS districts, and the special signage regulations pertaining to certain commercial uses, including theaters, hotels and motels, and gas stations. The proposed language also attempts to eliminate some anomalies, such as the three different sets of roles for signage on corner commercial properties. The new language would give every commercial property on a corner signs facing each of the main streets, with the second sign having one-half of the permitted area of the first. Other rather minor changes to the text of Section 18.50 are being made to eliminate some unnecessary wording. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and adopted, 9 was #09-138-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-06-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #312-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50 of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make various changes to the Sign Ordinance, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-06-04 be approved forthe following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will provide for a more uniform treatment of signage in the City; and 2. That the proposed language amendment will eliminate content -specific regulations in the Sign Ordinance in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Department. 20779 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I'm not vofing for it because I think some of the changes are good and some of them I dont agree with. Mr. McCann: Do you want to offer an altemative to table it? Mr. LaPine: I think we're anticipating that some judge is going to overturn this ordinance that has stood up for all these years. There may be some little things that have to be tweaked in here and taken care of, but just to change it because we think that some judge down the line is going to rule against us, unfit such time that happens, I don't see any reason to change the ordinance. Mr. McCann: Doyou see specific things in here? Mr. LaPine: Yes, and I brought them up at the last meeting. The changeable sign where somebody can put anything they want on the sign, which I don't agree with. I don't agree with the flag part of it. I don't agree with the memorial sign or tablets denoting the names and dales of the erection of the buildings will be deleted from the ordinance. There are a number of things I just don't agree with. Mr. Piercecchi: I vole no, Mr. Chairman. I know this is water under the bridge, but I, loo, am confused with a lot of this writing. I think we're letting a big chunk gel away from us. We should take each one of these sections individually and we're not doing it. Mr. McCann: All right. Well, let's call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Smiley, Alanskas, Shane, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20780 ITEM #9 PETITION 2003-07-06-05 NONCONFORMING LOTS Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-07-06-05, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #339-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not amend Section 18.06 of Article XVIII (Nonconforming Lots) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to define "Clear Majority" at a specific percentage as it relates to certain circumstances under which property owners can build on nonconforming lots without Zoning Board of Appeals or City Council approval. Mr. Taormina: Al the direction of the City Council, the Law Department has prepared language that would amend Section 18.06 of the Zoning Ordinance to define what a "clear majority" constitutes in the context of determining the applicafion to Lots of Record for building purposes. The language provided by the Law Department eliminates the use of the term "clear majority" and instead inserts language stafing that "any lot of record which is the same width and area as, or a larger width and area than, fifty-five percent (55%) or more' of the developed lots in the same subdivision may be developed as a separate building site. This applies only to abutting lots of record held under one ownership and where one or more of such lots are nonconforming. The definition of a lot of record is both (a) a platted lot and (b) a lot which actually exists as platted. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: Basically, it defines what clear majority means? Mr. Taormina: Thais correct. Mr. McCann: Seeing no one in the audience, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-139-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-07-06-05, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #339-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine 20781 whether or not amend Section 18.06 of Article XVIII (Nonconforming Lots) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to define "Clear Majority" at a specific percentage as it relates to certain circumstances under which property owners can build on nonconforming lots without Zoning Board of Appeals or City Council approval, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003- 07-06-05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will clarify the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to certain circumstances under which property owners may develop nonconforming lots; and 2. That the proposed language amendment will add language to Section 18.06 of the Zoning Ordinance to more precisely define the "clear majority" requirement. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #10 PETITION 2003-07-06-06 MASTER DEED APPROVALS Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-07-06-06, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #340-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.05(b) and (c) of Article XX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to require that approval of the Master Deed must be obtained prior to the establishment of improvement bonds in connection with cluster housing projects. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment would insure that improvement bonds are established only after waiver use and Master Deed approval have been granted in the case of site condominium developments. The proposed language proposes amendments to Sections 20.05(b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Under the proposed changes, Section 20.05(b) will have new language added that will require approval of the 20782 Master Deed for a Planned Residential Development or Planned General Development prior to any bonds being established by City Council. Also, Section 20.05(c) will be amended to require that the Master Deed shall be in strict conformity with the approved waiver, the conditions attached thereto, the site plan submitted with the waiver, and the provisions of Article XX. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? There is no one in the audience. I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-140-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003, on Petition 2003-07-06-06, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #340-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.05(b) and (c) of Article XX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to require that approval of the Master Deed must be obtained prior to the establishment of improvement bonds in connection with cluster housing projects, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-07-06-06 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will clarify that approval of the Master Deed must be obtained in connection with condominium developments, including cluster housing projects, that are approved through the waiver use process under the provisions of Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance; and 2. That the proposed language amendment will insure that the Master Deed will be submitted prior to any bonds being established by City Council in connection with condominium projects for which waiver use approval has been granted under the provisions of Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. 20783 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 873rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, September 30, 2003, was adjourned at 10:45. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary