Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-02-28 13893 MINUTES OF THE 699TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 28, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 699th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jim McCann, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow C. Daniel Piercecchi William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg Members absent: Jack Engebretson Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its awn public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing `r.• tonight. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-1-25 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #718-94, proposing to rezone property located between Inkster Road and Goff Street, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from R-1A and C-1 to NP. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane can you explain to the audience exactly what the Nature Preserve is under the new ordinance? Mr. Shane: The Nature Preserve zoning district was established in order to have a way of further preserving City-owned lands which would be encompassed by flood plain or particularly unique forest lands or wetlands. These particular lots which you see are not only within the flood plain itself, they also are forested, and therefore they come under the criteria for Nature Preserve. What the ordinance says is you may not use them for anything other than open space type activities in that that way it preserves them forever and always as an open space area and they cannot be used for building purposes. 13894 Mr. Morrow: Just a clarification H, the red triangles we see up there, I can assume that is City-owned property? Mr. Shane: Yes. The reason other properties in the area were not included is because they are not City-owned property. Mr. Morrow: And they cannot be designated Nature Preserve? Mr. Shane: That is correct. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item? If so, please come forward. Ivan Meyette, 18811 Foch: I am all in favor of making that Nature Preserve. I couldn't hear what you said about the other three parcels. Mr. Shane: The other three parcels are privately owned and therefore could not comply under the NP district because it is only for City-awned property. Mr. Meyette: Can they fill that in? Mr. Shane: Not only is the Nature Preserve a way of preserving the land but also there is a flood plain ordinance which indicates that you cannot use the property for anything but open space even though it is private property. So you have two controls here. One is the Flood Plain Ordinance and the other is the Nature Preserve. Mr. Meyette: Ever since I lived there it was my understanding it was all flood `'r►' plain anyway and it couldn't be built on. I am completely in favor of keeping it as Nature Preserve. If that thing ever backs up and comes across the street, it is going to be right in our basement. I would like to keep it as Nature Preserve. Ralph Williams, 18630 Foch: I would like to express my support for the proposed change, and also I have a proxy for two of my neighbors that couldn't be here tonight. There was no one else present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #2-28-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-1-25 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #718-94, proposing to rezone property located between Inkster Road and Goff Street, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from R-1A and C-1 to NP, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-25 be approved for the following reasons: 13895 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the City's desire to preserve those City-owned properties which meet the criteria necessary to be designated as a "Nature Preserve". 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the preservation of the subject properties in their natural state. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-1-1 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-l. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. `"�► Mr. Piercecchi: I notice in our notes here H that many of these lots, although they are in a RUF zone, do not meet the 1/2 acre lot requirement of an RUF district. What percentage of homes meet that criteria? Mr. Shane: In your package you have a map that is color coded and I would say by looking at that map probably maybe 1/3 of the lots that abut the lot itself are perhaps 1/2 of the RUF size lots. The other half would be smaller even though they are zoned RUF. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I represent Camborne Engineering, who in turn has negotiated with the Livonia School District. Mr. Watters is present this evening if you have any questions for him. We negotiated and won the bid to proceed hopefully to rezone the property so that we may have a residential sub with 60 foot lots, which would end up with 13 residential lots. In return Camborne Construction would remove the existing abandoned school and give to the School Board, upon improvements, a certain number of improved lots for their industrial arts classes to build four homes. I think it has been pointed out that presently the first thing we never want to hear is spot zoning. I contend this would not be spot zoning simply because to the east, as the gentleman 13896 pointed out earlier, you do have an R-1 section that we are contiguous to or directly across the street from. Also to the north on Pinetree, on the south side of Pinetree and on the north, it is zoned RUF but certainly they are not of RUF size. I *ft. would also like to point out that most of the lots on Laurel and adjoining lots on Orangelawn, the majority of these lots are 66 feet wide by some very excessive depth, so all the lots in turn would be a minimum of 60 x 120. I feel that with the lack of any organization in this immediate area that says this is an RUF district, as you have in certain areas, I feel that this area would adapt very nicely to 60 foot lots. I am sure you all went through the area and there are some very nice homes. There are a lot of asbestos siding homes. There is not a lot of organization such as because of the very excessive depths you have 30 foot setbacks, 50 foot setbacks, 70 foot setbacks, so it is nothing constructive in what I would consider an orderly up-to-date fashion. I honestly believe that if Camborne Construction were permitted to have the rezoning and construct the homes, you would find that this would certainly be an asset not only to the City of Livonia but also to all the adjoining property owners. I do not think in any way, shape or form this would impair the health, welfare or safety of the neighbors or the City of Livonia. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Roskelly, you just said you had a plan of 13 lots. Is that correct because our notes show there are 17 lots? Mr. Roskelly: Excuse me, that is correct. We have 17 and of the 17, in the agreement, we would be contributing 4 to the school for their construction and we would build on 13. Mr. Alanskas: So there will be 17? Mr. Roskelly: That is correct sir. Mr. Alanskas: The two facing Pinetree, will those be larger lots? Mr. Roskelly: I don't know if you have a copy of the proposed plat. We have it on the board. Mr. Alanskas: They look larger. That is why I am asking. Mr. Roskelly: While he is setting up the plan I would like to add one more remark. This building, which is in excess of 25,000 square feet, contains a lot of asbestos and other toxic things. I believe now that it is abandoned it is an accident waiting to happen. I suggest it behooves this board and the City to perhaps think very seriously of removing this building because I can't consider any other proposed use of this existing building, and certainly for the betterment of this City the building should be removed. I think the answer to your question is yes they are larger lots. Mr. Alanskas: What are the sizes? 13897 Mr. Roskelly: The two lots on Pinetree, the one lot on the corner of Stark and Pinetree would be 96 1/2 feet wide and the one west of that would be 85 feet wide. You will notice the depth is 120, and in this case they are 119 but they exceed the minimum area of an R-1. Mr. TaPine: Mr. Roskelly, when I went out and looked over the area, it seems to me there is more open land there than there is developed land. Most of it is in large parcels. Have you looked at going to R-3 instead of going to R-1? Mr. Roskelly: We have considered everything from RUF to R-1 and certainly the economics, first of all I believe the area with the quality of work my company does in the form of finished homes, I believe that area, if we were granted permission we would be placing homes in there in the area similar to my Western Golf Estates at Inkster and Five Mile Road, maybe a tad less, but I believe in the area of $120,000. From a marketing standpoint I think we are stretching the band and I don't believe we could come in and market a home in a much larger amount of money than that. Mr. TaPine: Can you give me a reason why you feel that way? Mr. Roskelly: I guess my history in building and developing in the City of Livonia, I usually critique to areas. For instance Seven Mile/Newburgh, which is partially my area, that is, of course, a $200,000 area. Western Golf Estates started at $119,000 and now is at an average of $150,000. My 1/2 acre lots at Six Mile will certainly be in the $200,000 range. I have two or three other subdivisions in that specific area. Looking at the immediate area, the adjoining homes, I think this would, with exception but in most cases, certainly be an upgrade in the area if we built homes in the area of $120,000. I also am anticipating that each home will have an attached garage. Mr. LaPine: I can't say I completely agree with you but that is my opinion. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, there have been a couple of other petitions to have a much more intensive use on that site. Were you involved in any of those in the past? Mr. Roskelly: I was not involved other than on one occasion. I was involved where a certain group of people that wanted the building to stay intact and they were going to use it, I believe, either for a private school or a church. Other than that I have heard rumors but no sir I have not been any part of any negotiations prior to this. Mr. Morrow: I was wondering how you became aware of the property. I think the main thing here is to know that the City has been faced with some intensive use on that site, and we have an opportunity tonight to consider a much more residential nature type of thing. That is the point I would like to make. 13898 Mr. Roskelly: I can certainly agree with you on that Mr. Morrow. I think the main thing here is with this building now being abandoned it behooves this board and all the commissions to certainly consider something reasonable. For instance, the demolishing of this school is a huge amount of money. In addition to that, if you look at that site you will notice there is a difference in grade of about 10 feet from the north plateau to the south plateau. Fortunately, in our studies we have made test holes and it is sand and we were quite concerned over any fill areas because of the history of the area in Hines Park. It is very good, excellent sand. We have a good opportunity to feather this down and, of course, I have my own engineering firm and we have the experience to groom this properly and create a very attractive subdivision. Mr. Piercecchi: Would you revisit the 13 and 4 for us? You said you would build on the 13 but the other four? Mr. Roskelly: They would be turned over to the school and their industrial classes would build homes as they did on Stonehouse off Joy Road. Mr. Piercecchi: They would build homes? Mr. Roskelly: Yes and they have in the past. I am sure if you are interested, Mr. Watters could speak of that program. It is quite an excellent program. They are industrial arts classes I believe. As far as those four homes go we would have certain restrictions to the homes and the school has agreed that they would comply with whatever design and value of homes that we would put in. Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Roskelly, I was interested in size and square footage of the homes, and also your proposed construction of exterior homes. Mr. Roskelly: Size wise I think we are looking at what would be either a ranch, a cape cod or a colonial. The ranches I would think would be in the area of 1200 square feet. The cape cods and colonials would be around 1400, 1600 to 1800 square feet with attached garages. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Doris Bradley, 9650 Laurel: I wanted to voice my approval for the school board selling this parcel of land because I realize that the existing structure of that school is a drain on the maintenance project. However, I was assured from the school board this summer that this parcel of land would be rezoned to R-2, which would be in conformance with the adjacent property, mine being one of them. Mr. McCann: Where do you live Ma'am. Ms. Bradley: To the left of the parcel in one of the larger lots. Basically the development would be adjacent to my back yard. I have a 13899 couple of general comments and I want to address a few things the developer said. Generally, my position is R-1 zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding properties. They are uniform pretty much in their classification otherwise, and I disagree ``m. with the developer on that point. I feel that an island of R-1 zoning there is not in the best interests of the nearby residents nor the community in general. I think 17 homes allowed by that zoning versus maybe 8 to 10 allowed by R-2 represents excessive profit goals, quite frankly, and I think those are gains that those of us in adjoining lots will pay the price. It will decrease property values and cause traffic and noise from that many homes, and even the ability to resale our property should we so chose. We would support a rezoning to only R-2 or higher than R-1. I don't know what RUF is but not R-l. Not 17 houses. To directly address what the gentleman before me said, he said that a lot of the lots on Laurel Street are small. While that is true further down Laurel towards Plymouth, but when you get to this area where this plot is, the lots are very much larger. He said he didn't think the market was there for higher priced homes. I can directly say that is not true because I bought one and they bought another. I happen to know that is not true. Although he said these lots to the north that are RUF zoned are not actually RUF, I don't know what they are but I know they are at least R-2. I know they are not R-l. I don't know why they have not looked at R-2. Maybe they cannot justify cost wise going to RUF in that plot of land but to me R-1 is completely excessive and the noise and traffic along Stark Road will be horrendous, which it already is. I think it is just not in the best interests of those of us that live right there. Seventeen houses is pretty excessive for that plot of land. Mr. McCann: For the record Ma'am, the staff did plot the three houses directly north of the subject parcel. One is smaller than R-1 and two comply with the R-1. They are smaller than R-2. Just to set the record straight. Ms. Bradley: Where is that? Mr. McCann: On the north side of the red striped parcel. Ms. Bradley: Immediately to the west? Mr. McCann: Those would all, according to the Planning staff, either comply with RUF or R-2. Ms. Bradley: That is where I live. Richard Potts, 9551 Stark Road: We occupy the property immediately to the south of the school property. I too agree with the fact that something must be done with that building. It is an eyesore in the area, and it has no other uses. It is in very bad decay. I am glad to see something is moving on this. My concerns are the following: the drainage in the area along that south line is along our 13900 property line. The map provided by the City actually shows the drainage through the middle of the PL property there. That is half way up the 10 foot drain so that is not the drainage line. Where the water runs in the spring, and the water does get high in there, is down my property line with the school property. With the construction in there I am concerned that water may be shifted over onto my property so therefore I hope the drainage will be taken care of and also the grading of the property will not shift the drainage over onto my property. Is there a drainage study? Has that been done? The test wells that you have drilled over there, you do have about 3 to 4 feet of sand. However, from there on down is a solid layer of clay. That is why the water table comes up on top of the ground in the wet season. It will not drain down through that clay. Does the contractor have a water study? Mr. McCann: Before they can go ahead and get this plat approved, they would have to do studies. They would have to go through the Engineering Department of the City of Livonia. They would have to verify that the drainage is proper, that any movement of the soil would have to comply, and show it would be taken care of before they could get plat approval. Is that correct H? Mr. Shane: They will have an internal drainage system and the Engineering Department will make sure your concern will be dealt with. They will not allow whatever they do to create a drain on your property. It will be internally drained and taken care of through the Engineering Department and approval of the engineering plans. Mr. Potts: Those are my two points of concern, the drainage and the grade. Carol Potts, 9551 Stark: I understand that you are looking at the lots that were just north but south of Pinetree here that you said were less than the proposed lots that are going to be put in the PL section, but you must be aware that those three houses that are in there, they are houses that have probably been there for 25 years. We have lived in our house since 1970 and most of the homes have been there since we moved into our home that we purchased ourselves. We are concerned about the water but we are also concerned too that if you have a high concentration of 17 homes in such a small plot that it will look extremely crowded in comparison to the rest of the area. For the rest of us it does give a feeling of spaciousness. Yes there are a lot of homes up and down Stark and in this particular area, but I see as the years pass by as other people take over these homes they will be expanding on them or they will take them dawn and build new homes. I see this area eventually evolving where it will get better and better. I really don't want to see homes that are 1200 square feet put into this section here. Mr. Morrow: I have one question. Looking at the map here, to the Past 13901 there is a subdivision developed R-1. Do you feel that works a hardship on the area to the RUF owners to the north and to the south? `4111. Ms. Potts: I know some of the neighbors who have lived in there over the years, I have met with them. They are small starter homes for a lot of young couples. I have been friends with young couples who have moved in there over the years. It was not a concern to us when we purchased the home when we did but we purchased it in 1970 and we only paid $29,000 for it. This is 1995 and our home is assessed far more in excess of $29,000. We chose it because it was a starter home for us also, but I think those homes are probably worth more than they were when they were originally put up. Unfortunately for the ones that will be on the school property, they don't have a whole lot of room to improve on their homes unless they go up a second story. They just don't have any depth. They don't have any room to add on so if you are planning on putting homes in on small lots, you are really essentially saying that is the size home you are going to have to live in for 40 years because you aren't going to have any room to add on. Mr. Morrow: But you feel they are co-existing fairly well with the north and south property owner? Ms. Potts: Yes I would say so at this time. Alexander Hudy, 10269 Stark: This is north of this property on the west side of the street. I am against the plan to rezone this area to R-1. My first concern is that 17 houses would increase the traffic. Nom. On my block of Stark on my side of the street there are only 23 houses. Seventeen houses is a large increase of the houses that would be serviced by Stark Road. During the winter, since Stark Road is a major plowed road, that would be a large increase in cars. My greater concern though is that the R-1 zoning would present an area where the houses are going to be on smaller lots, especially those lots that abut Stark Road. Talking about the house that you were just talking about on east on Richland. When my wife and I started looking at houses in Livonia, we drove down Richland because there was one house down that road that was for sale in our price range and we went half way dawn the street and we immediately noticed that the houses got on much smaller lots and were much more crammed in, and living on Stark now, I don't want to have someone driving down my street who is potentially going to want to buy my lot later, get down to where these houses are and say "Waw these houses are really crammed in. I don't want to live on this street because it looks haphazardly planned. It looks like someone all of a sudden decided to put some small houses in where the other houses were much larger". My main concern is the appearance of Stark Road be consistent throughout that area. I am not opposed to houses being on the school property. It would be an improvement to the area to have the school gone but I think the zoning of R-1 is not good with the 13902 area. I would say a zoning of R-4, R-5 or RUF would be much more in line with the rest of the area. Joanna Davis, 9700 Laurel: My property will back up to where the homes are going Nosy to be. Our lots there are 75'x 205'. My neighbor and I are very upset about this because we built our homes there because we like the open land and the homes spread far apart, which they are on our side of Laurel. The homes there are all spacious and spread apart. Seventeen homes behind us, we consider this looking at Quonset huts. 1200 square foot homes, our homes are twice that size. Our homes are only five years old so we are not in the older section. There are three brand new homes there, and this is why we bought there because of the openness. The kids play in that park in the summer, and in the winter they take toboggans and slide down it. It has been beautiful back there. I do agree that the school does look terrible and something should be done but I would rather see a church or something besides homes back there, especially 17 of them. Dave Dalfino, 10010 Stark Road: That is directly across from the current Stark school. I have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. At one point I lived in the first house on the north side of Richland that has been discussed with the R-1 zoning area. I lived in that house for 7 years and we had 66 foot wide by 137 foot lot and it was very small in keeping with the neighborhood. I too, having lived on Richland for 7 years, I will have to say that subdivision, although I lived there, certainly did not in any way fit the neighborhood. If you drive dawn Richland from the 11 homes that are there towards Farmington you will find nothing less than 1/2 acre, and the average is an acre and a half to two. I currently, at this point, am on Stark Road and I have one acre. I have that "L" shaped piece of land. First of all I want to say we would love to see an improvement in the neighborhood with the school being razed and something better being put there, but in no way would I like to see 17 homes put there. I was born and raised in the construction business and I understand what is taking place here. I understand opportunity from all angles, being a general contractor. Those of us that live in the area, the majority is RUF. R-1, like I said I lived in that R-1 section for 7 years, it was not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. As far as value of the homes in the area. I have been there for 14 years and it has gone up astronomically. I first purchased my home on Richland for $40,000 and sold it 7 years later for better than double that. Now the homes on Richland are all $100,000 homes. Those little ranches are $100,000. Up and down Stark Road behind the school there are homes way over $200,000. The home directly next to mine is over a $160,000 home. We are talking homes 1800, 2100, 2400 square feet. These homes, 17, are not in keeping with this neighborhood. Not even close. We would love to see some nice homes in there. Maybe some homes similar to the ones built in a subdivision south of Plymouth Road in the back of the cul-de-sac. 13903 Nice size lots, homes that are in keeping with those coming into the neighborhood and have been coming into the neighborhood over the last few years. In addition to the comments that were made earlier about the field flooding. That field floods something terrible and I feel sorry for the families that live south of there for anything that is going to be done with the grades. It would be nice to see some area of green land left in the neighborhood. For years the school has been here. For years it has been used by the community for softball, football, sledding. We have to go all the way up to Shelden Center to fly a kite with the kids, hit a ball, etc. if we want to have a community area. It is something all of us will miss in the neighborhood. One of my suggestions, in addition to being tremendously opposed to 17, is that maybe something in the neighborhood of 10 but to have some green area, some park area. After all it has been a school plus a park for 50 years. It is like the neighborhood playground. That area is so wet, up until we had this last freeze you couldn't even walk across that field without it coming up past your ankles. That is a serious problem that has to be considered. We must keep 17 homes out of our area for the simple reason there is nothing adjacent to it, save those few lots in that tiny corner, which are by no means in keeping with the majority of the area. They are little tiny postage stamps in comparison to the rest. The rest of us have anywhere from 66 as being very, very small by 160 foot frontage on Stark Road and nearly 300 feet deep. I know I am certainly not out of the norm. The size of the lots and the amount of density in that area is of great concern. '44111. Gordon Rooker, 10426 Stark: I too have some concerns about this being zoned in an R-1 fashion. One, there are a lot of people that live on Stark Road and we have children. We have a problem right now with people that go from Plymouth Road dawn Stark to Edward Hines Drive. In the early morning and in the late afternoon trying to back out of my driveway is a chore because the traffic is so heavy as it is now and that is a very major problem. Along with the problem of the traffic that comes from the park, we get a lot of speeders. I have children. My children ride bikes and play along Stark. In the neighborhood towards Plymouth Road, in the sub that was built dawn there, he rides his bike dawn Stark to go there to play with the children. That has been a concern of mine. I have even talked to some of the police officers that sit on Stark and ticket people for going 45 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone. Another problem I have with this being zoned R-1, if you put 17 homes in this area, which is not, as far as I am concerned, large enough for 17 homes, and what I base that on is I have been in the construction business for 20 years. I have been in business for myself for 15 years and I can tell you that 17 homes in that area, they are going to be small and they are going to be stacked upon one another. I have built enough homes to know. Another problem we have dawn there is the grading affect. During our rainy season in the spring that floods out 13904 down there. They have some horses down there towards the end of the lots and they get a lot of flooding as it is. When you look at where the school is located to the lowest point from where the gray area is down to the far corner, there is probably at least a 10 foot drop. They are going to grade that out but how is it going to affect the other residents that live in that area? Another concern of mine is the traffic influx. If you are going to have 17 homes built in there, you are going to have 17 more cars coming down there plus maybe a couple of extra if both people work so you are definitely going to increase the traffic, which is already a problem to us residents right now being that is the main shortcut dawn to Edward Hines Drive. The gentleman over here alluded to the fact that he couldn't think of anything better than to put in 17 homes there. As Dave Dalfino said earlier, our children have played there for years. It has been kind of our park, a place to go throw a frisbee, take your dog dawn and play ball with, etc. One idea off the top of my head, if it was a park with swings and stuff for the kids and children in the area, that is a better idea than 17 homes as far as I am concerned. I am not opposed to taking this school down. It is an eyesore and I am not opposed to that. I am not opposed to that if it is zoned RUF or R-2 and putting 10 homes in there. You could put 10 homes in there that would be in keeping with the homes in the general area and not affect our property values and not be a tremendous burden upon the traffic in the area. If you put 17 homes in there, you are talking a whole different ball game. You are talking oranges and apples. I would just like the council to know that my concern basically rides on the fact I don't want 17 homes put in there. I am not opposed to `r. zoning that in an R-2 fashion and maybe putting 10 homes in there or even going farther and looking for different ideas for that property that could be a benefit to the City of Livonia and the residents in the area. Terry Cadovich, 9536 Laurel: In reference to the whole problem there have been many things said. I am south of that property. My property floods next to Carol Potts. I sit in the back 60 foot of my property which is 100'x300'. Four months of the year I cannot have access to the back of my property. You are talking about grading this out. That property parallel to the school now, the 10 feet just north of that fence is swamp land 9 months of the year. I don't know what the proposal is. That statement that you made that it is all sand, I had to elevate my basement due to the fact that I hit a clay base at 5 1/2 feet, solid clay that water runs inside and outside. I have flooded once already in my basement. I put an extra $4,000 in the basement, 4 inches of pea gravel, inside and outside drains and I still have a drainage problem. Contrary to what that gentleman said there is no problem with sand, that whole area is sitting on clay. I am not opposed to building homes in the area. I am kind of upset about the fact that I bought the property 15 years ago with the intention of keeping the rural area. I like the atmosphere. It 13905 is peaceful back there. If you want to build homes, I don't see any objection to that. Let's just conform to the balance of the area that is presently in that area south of that excluding the area on Richland. When I purchased the property it was gravel road, they were all 100 foot lots. There are some deficient lots across the street. There is one house specifically that is on a 45' x 120'lot. That is because it was sold afterwards and there is a real small house on that. That is my major concern. Like I say, I am not opposed to any additional building in Livonia. I think it is a great idea. There have been plans for senior citizens housing and I believe there has been a company that approached the City in reference to turning that into a day care center and someone refused that. Also in reference to the fact you said it is very costly to remove toxic waste or asbestos, you should contact a company called Beckert Oil. They have a product out now that sprays on asbestos and literally peels off. It is not harmful or toxic, and it is very, very cost effective. William Taylor, 9487 Stark: That is just south of the school. I have a problem with the drainage also. Not as bad as the others but I am worried about it. Part of the reason I moved into this area was for the scenery. I am probably one of the few here that played on that when I was a kid. My kids play there now. The thought of having 17 houses, that is like putting 4 more houses in my backyard. There is just not room for it. I am not opposed to having houses but can't we do something like 10 to 12. That is all I have to say about it. I am worried about the drainage because you do hit the clay once you get down about 4 1/2 to 5 a.. feet. Any of us that have lived there, we can tell you that. `. That is all I have to say about it. Mark Maloziec, 9491 Stark: That is just south of the school. This summer I contacted the City about modernizing my house, and I had a patio installed on the back of my house. We dug down two feet and hit water and the building inspector said that wasn't unusual in the area. My big concern would be by grading this down, Mr. Cadovich, myself and Willie are going to get flooded out. I like to garden in the summertime. I have a garden there. If we have a heavy rain I have to garden in a raw boat. That is my main concern. I don't mind if you want to take the school down and put up a park for the kids. I would be more than happy to support you on that. Mary Horgan, 10195 Stark: We have two lots in that area. We have the lot at 10011 Stark Road, which is straight across from the school, and I am opposed to all those houses being built where Stark School is now. I have no objection to maybe 8 to 10 homes there but not 17. We have a traffic problem on Stark. Four o'clock in the evening you can't leave your driveway. You have to wait there for at least five to ten minutes to get out of your driveway. The lot at 10195 Stark Road is 66'x 360' and the lot at 10011 Stark Road is 106'x 246' so the only complaint I have is with traffic and I don't want a rural area turned into a subdivision. 13906 Bill Cohan, 34760 Pinetree: Traffic, has there been a study done on traffic in there? Mr. McCann: I am not aware of a study yet. H, are you aware of a study? Mr. Shane: There has been no study. Mr. Cohan: On the west corner of that public land, that is a bus stop, and in the morning peak hours, it is dangerous, especially in the morning with this freezing rain. The kids were almost run down out there. I know. I try to stop there at the corner and it is pretty slick. In the afternoon rush hours from Laurel to Wayne Road on Pinetree it is bumper to bumper traffic. There are times when you have to wait at that stop sign on Laurel to head west for clearance for one vehicle so you can proceed and take your place in line waiting for left hand turns onto Wayne Road from Pinetree. Public lands, as a kid I played at Stark School. Everybody did. We played baseball there. The community needs a park. There is not a swing set within a mile radius of that public land. We all know that to get to Shelden Center you must cross a major surface road. We need a park and swing sets in the area not 17 homes. Again, the school is an eyesore but 17 homes will be even more of an eyesore. The wetlands. If anybody parks down here on Hines Drive by the foot of that bridge that crosses over Hines Drive, if you park down there and get out of your vehicle and look up Plymouth Road, you can see the grade incline. Believe me it is terrible. When you get to the school you can see where the land drops 10 feet, slopes out and retains water there. A vehicle last year, a young man thought he was being `rr. very clever on Friday night, got caught Saturday morning when his vehicle got stuck up to its frame. Overall, our major concern in the neighborhood is not only in the size of the lots, but the traffic flow. There are a lot of children in the area and pets. You can't always guarantee your pet will leave the yard but I can guarantee you one thing, there is a good chance of him getting run over. It is tremendous. I would like to have a traffic study in the area. I am sure that would help rectify some of your decisions. Seventeen homes, 34 vehicles, on an average two vehicles per home. If we cut it down to 10 homes or 8 homes then you are in the neighborhood of 16 vehicles. Again, I would like to see $150,000 homes in value. Don Komos, 9552 Stark: I am here representing my wife as well. She can't be here. We have been here for 20 years. With respect to a study, I conducted my own study regarding the traffic because the Livonia police will not do anything because they say they have higher priorities. At 7:30 I took my car at the beginning of Hines and Stark Road, complying with the 25 m.p.h. speed limit, proceeded to Plymouth Road at the same rate. There is a double yellow line there and I had been passed several times just by experimenting myself. I went from 7:30 in the morning up and down Stark Road, and the people coming from Westland or wherever they are coming yr.. 13907 from to go to work here were passing me up on a double yellow line. That has occurred and I just want to make reference to a study that drnsn't exist but unofficially I have conducted my own *Jr study. With respect to the residential plan. I feel when you say residential zone, you are saying those homes, in my opinion, are going to be the same configuration. Is that right? Mr. McCann: Ranches, colonials, I believe. Mr. Komos: When I came here to Stark I enjoyed the diversity of the different homes that were already there. I would hate to see any new development there as far as that goes. With respect to the playing area, although my wife and I don't have kids, we feel for our neighbors the dangers and particularly without any place to play, it is certainly dangerous to play from what I can see in Hines Park. It is actually turning into a danger land out there for kids. I don't see them playing out there. This is a nice place for the kids to play, an area like that. As for the building itself, I can only suggest a church, but I am totally against the proposal because we will be facing it and looking at it. The reason I built my house in the beginning was to see that kind of spaciousness and the beautiful diversity of homes there and the spacious lots. 'Ib propose this to increase the tax base to me is ridiculous. I think Livonia is built out and people are moving out and I think it is time to preserve what we have. William Bowman, 34334 Orangelawn: I live on the north corner of Orangelawn and Stark. I have two small sons, and there are no sidewalks in that area, and they have no place to play. I am opposed to putting 17 more houses in there, 13 built by a construction company, and then how long will it take the school project to complete the four other homes in there. You are going to have 13 complete houses and you are going to have four that will be built as project homes. I moved out of subdivision just like the one that is on Richland to the house that we have on Orangelawn right now because basically that street was a country road in the city and 17 more homes with all that traffic, and Stark Road is in terrible shape right now as it is. I would like to see that road fixed before they have any kind of construction in that area. I have lived there for two years now and myself I have seen the flooding that goes on in the south end of that school lot. I am opposed to putting 17 houses in there. I would like to see it used as a park. My kids love to go play and they always want me to take them up to Shelden Park. They can't cross Farmington Road, one is six and one is nine, and I would like to see some kind of park built on that area for everyone to use. Not just for my kids but for everyone to use. Kevin McCarthy, 34232 Orangelawn: That is one house off Stark Road. I stand opposed to the R-1 zoning. I think the best use of that land is as a school. I don't know what the cost would be to remove the asbestos and remodel the existing building to be used as a school 13908 but I think the demographics of the community, at least in this area, show a lot of people have prc-school age children. We are getting to a point where the schools are going to be growing again, where they have been downsizing recently I understand. There are a lot more young children getting ready to enter school and I would like to see it used as a school. If not a school, maybe a park. I know economic circumstances probably dictate that it should be used as a residential area, and I would like to see it zoned RUF or R-2. My concerns are also traffic and I don't think the R-1 zoning on Richland fits in with the area but that was done many, many years ago, but just because you make one mistake doesn't mean you have to make another one right next to it. A lot of the houses in the R-1 on Richland are very nice because the people that moved in there take care of their homes and they are nice homes. I just don't think the lots are big enough. That is why I bought my house. Jon Mynarzy, 10633 Stark Road: I have lived there approximately two years. What attracted myself and my wife to that area was the size of the lots, the uniqueness of the homes. Those of you that live on Stark are familiar with the shopping complex where the Coney Island is. There are two new homes that have been there approximately five years. 'Ilan years ago when my wife and I were looking for a home, the second home was up for sale for approximately $138,000. If you look at that multi-listing today, that home is still for sale for $110,000. It is not selling because the lot is so small. Mr. McCann: Sir, you have already spoken tonight. I will restrict you to additional new information. Gentleman front Audience: The only thing I wanted to point out it seems a lot of my neighbors didn't get a copy of what I got. I went up to the third floor and got a listing. R-2 lots are only 10 foot wider than R-1 lots. I think a lot of people think an R-2 lot is much larger than that. If any of my neighbors want to go to the third floor of this building, they will give you a list. R-4 lots are listed as 90'x130'. I think that is more of what we are looking for. R-2 is only 10 foot wider. Bill Zirblis, 34500 Pinetree: There is a terrific problem on Pinetree. I heard most of the problems being on Stark Road but living on Pinetree, it is a cut-thru street. The truckers and city workers, everybody goes through. The traffic just doesn't stop. I would highly recommend that a traffic study be included in any plans that you make. Mr. McCann: I am going to allow the petitioner to respond and then I am going to close the public hearing. Mr. Roskelly: I have heard some eloquent comments. Some I agree with. Some I don't. I would like the record set straight. I indicated 13909 that I personally was there when we dug six test holes ten foot deep. At one test hole we hit clay at 9 feet. We did not know why. Not in any way implying that nobody was untrue but on that specific site it is all sand. That is basically clear, good sand. The other item as far as drainage, water, etc. , this is a land use meeting tonight but certainly I can assure, and we are all aware of the fact, that number one I did enough investigation. I certainly realize under no circumstances can any storm water be shed off on any adjoining property, which is certainly one of your engineering criteria. I also believe that I made the comment that a large percentage of the houses were somewhat less house than what we are going to build, and I still maintain that in excess of 60% of those houses would not match the houses that we are going to build. I hear stacked homes. I take exception to the comment that I build stacked homes. R-1 zoning is not a stacked home concept. It is a parcel of land that is more than adequate for a home that I certainly have built in the City and my reputation proceeds me and I do not build stack homes. I am very proud of what I build and I would like the opportunity to proceed in this area. One more comment on traffic. Somebody mentioned that perhaps you should leave it a school or perhaps a church. I submit that when this was an open school more traffic was generated by the teachers and students than will be generated by 17 homes. I can't believe 17 homes are going to cause a traffic jam. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, you heard the cry for larger lots here tonight. At what point is it you just can't afford to continue on with your ,` development? Mr. Roskelly: I will be completely honest. The agreement we have with the Livonia Schools is that it becomes null and void if we do not get approval for R-1 or R-2, R-2 being 70'x120'. If it is not R-1 or R-2, certainly this project would be abandoned as far as Camborne Construction would be concerned. Mr. Alanskas: I want to, for the neighbors in the audience, on that subdivision that is R-1 there are 18 homes on that subdivision and the first lot on the corner is 80 feet wide. That is Lot 17. Lot 16 is 67 feet wide. The next eight parcels are 60'x173' so they all exceed R-1. R-1 is 120 so they are not cramped in that subdivision. This would only be 17 homes. Mr. LaPine: Listening to the residents this evening I know we would all like that to be a park but that is something you might as well get out of your mind. Number one, the property is owned by the Livonia Schools. The only way that could become a park is the school would have to donate the land to the City but that is not going to happen. They have an investment in there that the taxpayers paid for. Consequently they want to sell the property to generate some revenue to help with the cost of the education of our children. The City does not have the money to buy the land, 13910 tear down the building and make it a park so that scenario is not going to happen. The only thing we have left, you have a number of choices. There are other things that could go in there, nursing home, and there are other things. In my honest opinion the best thing for it is homes because the way schools are built in Livonia, they are basically in residential areas surrounded by homes. The only thing we could do and do justice to the residents in that area is to do homes. I don't agree with Mr. Roskelly that we can't put larger lots in there. I have been here 40 years and I bought a home for $15,000 when I first moved into the City and I live up at the north end, which is a lot more expensive homes than the $15,000 home I bought. I have never seen a subdivision in this City that whether the homes are sold for $15,000 or $250,000, that haven't sold well, so I don't think his argument that he can't sell homes up in that area for $150,000 or $175,000 holds any water. When I look at this map that was given to us tonight that shows all the different zonings in the area, there are two houses that are on less than R-1, which is 60 foot widths. There are 32 houses that comply with the R-1 district, which is 60 foot lots. There are three in the R-2 district, which is 70 foot lots. There are five in the R-3 classification, which are 80 foot lots, and there is an R-4 and an R-5. The over abundance of lots in this area are RUF lots. I don't think it reasonable to ask this gentleman to develop those lots as RUF lots, 1/2 acre lots, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask him to build them on 80 foot lots, which is an R-3. I don't think that is unreasonable. I think the area warrants it. I think the area will support it. I think the homes can be sold at that price. Therefore, if Mr. Roskelly feels he can't do that, he is not the only developer who might be interested in buying this land. Maybe some other developer would like to buy this land and put in 80 foot lots. I personally think the area warrants the larger lots and I can't support it in the R-1 district. Mr. Piercecchi: How many 80 foot or 70 foot lots are potential for that area sir? Mr. Roskelly: The only other area that we would consider is 70 and I think it is three lots, which would be 14 lots. Let the record show that Mr. LaPine indicated 80s. My petition was for R-1 but I would concede to R-2 but I would not honor any recommendation other than R-1 or R-2. Mr. Alanskas: So you are saying if it was R-2 you would be putting in 14 instead of 17 homes? Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Are you voluntarily amending your petition this evening to change it to R-2 and requesting approval? We have R-1 before us. Mr. Roskelly: I am also aware of the fact by virtue of my petition asking for 13911 one, I believe I would have the opportunity to tell you at this time that I would certainly accept an R-2 consideration with your approval but not an R-3 or anything higher. 'tom. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-1-1 closed. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to table this for two weeks so we can get a better idea of haw many lots you could get with R-2 and what they would look like and the size of them. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #2-29-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-1-1 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-1-1 until March 14, 1995 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow "%N. NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-4 by Krishman C. Janveja, Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a new enclosed garden shop area and to expand the existing outdoor garden shop area for the Kmart store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating their departments have no objections to this petition. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed 4560 sq. ft. enclosed garden area addition is in compliance with all C-2 district regulations. Construction of the garden addition will cause a 13912 loss of 20 existing parking spaces and generate a requirement for 7 additional spaces. Proposed signage for this petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of appeals for the excss number of signs and the non-conforming pylon sign. We have also received a letter from Richard George who states he is the owner of the property at 30303 and 30313 Plymouth Road. His property is directly in front of K-Mart. He feels this would be a good use for this property and an enhancement to the City. It is zoned properly and is hidden from the road. Please approve this expansion. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Krishman Janveja: I work for Kmart Corporation. I am the Civil Engineer on the project. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us basically what the intent and purpose of this expansion is for? Mr. Janveja: The purpose is to expand the existing garden shop and also add an enclosed garden shop, which will be 40 feet by 115 feet, and also remove the old signs for some new signs, and also create some new island in the front of the garden shop. Mr. Morrow: The store to the west, as I understand it, is vacant. It seems to me somewhere we were told that was going to be opened up and expanded by Kmart. Mr. Janveja: Yes that is inside the store. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted that for the record. That portion that is now vacant will now become retail space for Kmart? Mr. Janveja: It will become retail space. Mr. Alanskas: In your garden shop will there ever be a time when you will have merchandise stacked over the height of the fence where you can see it from the parking lot? Mr. Janveja: No. Mr. Alanskas: Will you ever attempt to sell flowers or any materials out on the sidewalk in front of the store? Mr. Janveja: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Why? Mr. Janveja: We have been doing it for quite a few years and we would like to keep on doing it. 13913 Mr. Alanskas: Do you realize when you do that you are taking away walking space? Mr. Janveja: No it stays in the covered area. Mr. Alanskas: It is still space used for walking. How wide are your carts that you have the flowers on? How far do they stick out? Mr. Janveja: They will not stick out outside of the covered area. Mr. Alanskas: Why can't you leave them in the garden shop? Mr. Janveja: It is more attractive to sell the merchandise outdoors in the summertime. . Mr. Alanskas: But that doesn't mean it is right. Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas, Kmart came before us regarding outside storage of plants in the springtime and it was approved. I believe they have a variance for a certain period. Mr. Shane: They have a waiver use which was approved to limit them to a certain area in front of the store on the sidewalk and it is limited to probably May 1st to October 1. Mr. Alanskas: I rescind that question. Mr. LaPine: I think Mr. Alanskas has brought up a good point though. We are New now expanding the garden shop and we are enclosing it. If we are doing that we are expanding it, then I don't see any reason to allow them to continue the waiver use we gave them for the outside storage and selling of plants when we could have all of that on the inside. What is the idea of expanding your base if you can't get rid of the stuff that you have been storing outside? I would feel that by enclosing it you are trying to keep everything on the inside. Mr. Janveja: We are just enclosing a very small area. In the summertime it draws a lot of sales. Mr. LaPine: On the outside are you going to have peat moss stored out there? Mr. Janveja: No. On the outside it would be basically flowers and those kind of things. Mrs. Blomberg: I am gathering from what I am hearing is basically the flowers in front are sort of an impulse thing. People go in and they pass the flowers and they pick up some flowers and maybe that is why they are outside. Is that correct? Mr. Janveja: That is true. 13914 Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal. `„ Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I had seen a preliminary plan that Kmart had submitted with respect to this. I don't see one this evening. I would like to say we are in favor of and support this expansion. However, there was one item on the plan that I am not sure was ever resolved or is known to this board, and that is part of the proposal reflects relocating the drive that currently runs east and west in front of the Kmart building further to the north and it aligns with that drive that runs to the north of Target. However, as part of their proposal they are installing some additional landscape islands. Those are on our property, and I would just like this board to know that while we support the proposal and we support the new islands, we would grant permission for Kmart to construct those, but I think if you see fit to approve this proposal this evening you should condition it that they do need to come to us to get that permission if they do put those islands where they are showing them on the drawing. I think it is an asset to the whole property but I just want Kmart to know they should come to us for that permission. Mr. TaPine: H, it was my understanding from the study meeting that they are renovating the whole outside of this building. Mr. Shane: Yes they are. Mr. TaPine: Have they submitted a site plan? Mr. Shane: Yes they have. Mr. Nowak presented the site plan. Mr. Morrow: The islands that Mr. Polsinelli made reference to, are they shown on that drawing? Mr. Nowak: Yes, it straddles the property line. Mr. Morrow: It is on their plan so they need approval from Schostak to get those installed? Mr. Nowak: That is right. Mr. Nowak presented the building elevations. Mr. TaPine: That encompasses both the old store and the furniture store combined. Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: Correct. 13915 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #2-30-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-4 by Krishman C. Janveja, Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a new enclosed garden shop area and to expand the existing outdoor garden shop area for the Kmart store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-4 be approved subject to a variance being granted with regard to deficient off-street parking by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated 11-2-94 prepared by J. R. Hill, P.E. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-5 dated 12-12-94 prepared by B. W. Glasser, Architect (not including proposed signage) which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That K-Mart shall secure approval from the Wonderland Mall to make the adjustments in the landscape islands. Nifty 4) That at no time shall Kmart stack any materials above the height of the walls so it may be seen by the public. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13916 Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed outdoor patio dining area will increase the parking requirement for this site by 24 parking spaces. The total parking requirement for this site would be 152 parking spaces, with only 142 spaces provided. This proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the deficient 10 parking spaces. Mr. Nowak presented the site plan. Mr. McCann: Without the outdoor seating, we are currently short how many parking spots? Mr. Nowak: They have sufficient right now. `,, Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Norman LePage, 3950 Maple Hill West, West Bloomfield: I am the owner of Eastside Mario's. I am going to start out and then I will introduce Ray Lance, Director of Operations for the restaurants. He can give you the specifics about the addition. I wanted to point out to you first of all if you have been to Eastside Mario's or have passed it, I am sure you have noticed that there is already an existing greenbelt area in that patio area and we did that out of no disrespect for the City of Livonia or for any of the commissions or Planning Commission. We designed that in such a way that we put brick pavers there that would enable us to change that or convert those parking spaces if the City, in its wisdom, decided to not grant our petition for the patio. The other reason we did that we knew we would be petitioning at this time of the year and one of the things we were very concerned about is in the potential scenario where the City would approve us, we would then be faced with a construction situation right at the entrance of the restaurant. I think most of you probably know there is a good amount of traffic coming and going at Eastside Mario's. We are serving between 6,000 to 7,000 meals a week. While it is a manageable situation, I felt creating a construction area in that area during the spring would be a hazardous situation. In addition, we take a great deal of pride 13917 in the appearance of the property as well as the maintenance of the property, and one of the things we were concerned about was being able to seal coat our parking lot in the early spring as lo, soon as the weather breaks. We did it in the early fall but unfortunately it got washed out right after we did it so we have to redo that in the spring. Again, I want to reinforce the fact that there was no disrespect intended, and we would like then to describe to you what our exact petition is. Ray Lance, Director of Operations: I think the main point requesting the waiver use approval, we have operated restaurants for many years and found out traditionally in the summertime the business drops off, and Norm has worked with patios in various restaurants that we have. We currently have two restaurants that have patios and it has proven true, including the Eastside Mario's in Rochester Hills, it has proven true to keep our business consistent through those slow times. I think it is definitely a stability issue for us. As everyone probably knows we made a pretty sizable investment into that property. The other thing, it is part of the Eastside Mario's concept. Every Fastside Mario's across the country has a patio. We have not found, especially at the Rochester Hills location, any additional issues with parking because of the patio. I think it definitely enhances the image. I also think it also falls in line with what we are trying to do with developing Plymouth Road. I think it sends a good message and I think it looks nice. One thing we found also dealing with patios through the years, in the summertime it becomes a trade out to where people, instead of sitting inside, they chose to sit Nor outside and there are many times during the summer when we have our inside stations closed and our patio full. It is a good trade out. The other thing too, and I know all of you are aware of our opening and the incredible amount of traffic that came out of our parking lot. Traditionally as we go along here, it is a normal restaurant trend, the national restaurant average is a 23-28% drop in restaurant traffic throughout the first year. We call that our honeymoon period. It starts on about the sixth month. Over at Rochester Hills we also experienced that. We saw a 20% drop in business after our initial opening month. I think we will see that happening here also. We need to expect it. We need to plan for it. I think that is real important for us to continue our success in that building. The other point I want to make, this is another issue, many times in a restaurant not every seat is full. There are a lot of times you will have four seats at a table and there are only two people sitting there. It is very hard to fill up every single seat in a restaurant. I think that should also be taken into consideration. I also at times, Friday and Saturday nights, understand the parking situation. If you walk out into the parking lot at eight or nine o'clock, at our peak time, I have always been able to find 10 to 15 spots that are still open. One final thing I would like to say about this, this would be a seasonable thing. We are talking about maybe the first of May, if we are lucky, throughout the summer, 13918 and then usually in September it is over. We are talking about a 3 - 3 1/2 month situation with the patio open. The final thing is I think we have a unique situation that a lot of restaurants don't get to enjoy. We have an incredible amount of parking around us. One thing I did not submit when I made the original submission, I do have a signed agreement with the doctors allowing us to utilize their parking lot. I have that with me tonight. They have no objection to us using their lot. Between all the different places around us, the City lot across the street has 28 spaces. When we develop the City lot there are an additional 18 spots. A. J. Foley has given us 16 parking slots which we can use beside us. The antique shop also closes early ordinarily on weekdays at 5:00 p.m. They chose to stay open later now so there are another 12 spots there. I think the situation warrants itself and the parking we have it here. It just doesn't show it fits the code. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mr. Morrow: During this honeymoon period that you make reference to, do you see a need to spill over into the commercial areas that have given you permission to use their spots after hours? Mr. Lance: At times. There are different days of the year when you have special events like Valentine's day or something like that. We have to utilize those spaces then. Mr. Morrow: But there is still space in the back? They just use that because it is more convenient? ,4111.0 Mr. Lance: Yes. Mr. Morrow: In other words you were not completely full which caused the overflow. They just parked there because it was more convenient? Mr. Lance: That could be a correct assumption. Mr. Alanskas: In regards to parking, even though you do have a letter for the doctor's office after 7:00 p.m. , what about in the daytime when people can't go in there because your customers are parking in their lot? Mr. LePage: The doctors pointed that out to us very early in the game. While we wanted to wait until the spring to accomplish what we needed to accomplish to relieve their situation, it was an untenable situation because their patients weren't able to get into the lot, so we paid to have signs put into the ground indicating that any people that would park in those spots prior to seven o'clock in the evening would be towed away, and the other day for example, Friday which is a real strong lunch hour for us, I pulled into the lot and they had seven empty spots during lunch hour and our lot was very full. Plus we also paid to put a larger sign right at the entrance of their lot indicating the same information. Since we have put those signs in there, it has not been a problem. 13919 Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask, I have been to your place various times at various hours, and even if you say you have the parking, you don't because that parking there is a mess. I think it is just an act of God that there has not been an accident around your `„ facility because you just don't have enough parking. You have so much business there. People can't park anywhere and now you want to have another x number of spaces in the summertime. I would think in the summertime, because the whether is so much nicer, you would have more people coming to your business than you do in the wintertime. Mr. LePage: That is not the way it works in the restaurant business. Traditionally, in fact all of my restaurants, the business goes dawn during the summer months. People find other things to do in the summer and this is one of the ways to encourage them to come back to your restaurant so your business doesn't fall off. This would provide a situation where they would have the opportunity for some outdoor dining. I understand what you are saying with regard to the parking. As a matter of fact, before I came over tonight I went over to the restaurant and the restaurant was fairly full, and I counted the empty parking spots and there were 15 empty parking spots in the lot and we haven't really developed the City lot yet, which we just today signed an agreement on, which will afford us another 15 spaces. I agree with what you are saying. It has been, on occasion, a difficult situation. I think that is leveling out now. In fact, I know it is leveling out. There is no question the traffic is cut back considerably since our opening. I think if you took the time to drive the lot maybe two or three times over the next week or so, you probably Nies. would agree with me. Mr. Alanskas: Even though your business slacks off in the summertime, like you say in the summertime it is nicer and you will have more traffic going up and dawn Plymouth Road, which will make that still a very serious problem. To give you more seating, gives us more of a parking problem. I think you will just add to the problem by asking for more seating. Mr. LePage: Again, what I would like to point out is our experience is, and this holds true because I have eight to ten restaurants with outdoor dining, so our experience is what is happening is instead of seating inside, people will chose to sit outside. Very often what you are going to find is you will go into the restaurant during the summer months and you will see perhaps two or three stations closed and the patio will be open because of the opportunity to sit outside. That is 22 years of experience. Mr. LaPine: You are now providing 142 spaces on your property. Is that correct? Mr. Lance: We will have 142 when we fully develop the City lot. Mr. TaPine: You show on your plan you have total parking provided 142 spots 13920 but at this time you don't have 142 spots because that is less the 15 spots on the City leased land. _r. Mr. LePage: We haven't paved that yet. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. What I am trying to ascertain here is how many parking spots are you providing naw? Mr. LePage: 128 spots. Mr. LaPine: So you have 128 spots there right now. Then you are going to pick up an additional 15 spots from the City-owned lot once it is paved. That will give you 143 spots. Then after five o'clock you have permission to use 16 spaces at the A. J. Foley Company. Is that correct? Mr. LePage: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So that is another 16 spots you have there. The doctor has given you permission to use 12 spaces on his property after seven o'clock. In reality you have 171 spots. I just want to get that clear in my mind. Mr. LePage: And that don't include the City lot across the street. Mr. Piercecchi: Has any consideration been given to the landscaping? I notice here on the write up by our Planning staff that you currently have approximately 8% as opposed to the required 15%. Are there any plans in the mill with regard to meet that requirement? Now Mr. Lance: We were thinking that we were correct in our landscaping with the patio. Mr. Piercecchi: It says here "The area devoted to landscaping on the site plan, which include the perimeter landscaping bordering the patio area and the proposed relocation of two existing landscape areas in the northeasterly portion of the site, equals approximately 8% of the total site area as opposed to the required 15%". Mr. Lance: You are talking about the City lot then? Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking about 15% landscaping. Mr. Lance: The plans were to remove the existing beds in the northeast corner and move them into the corner of the City lot. We would be willing to do whatever we needed to do to make sure that was correct. I apologize I wasn't aware that we did not have that covered. Mr. Shane: It should be pointed out that in the original approval of Mario's site plan they were deficient by approximately 8 to 10% at that time so they are not any more deficient than they were when they 13921 were originally approved. We pointed out in the notes that there was a deficiency but there has always been a deficiency from the beginning when they were approved for the original site plan. Sm. What I am saying is they haven't gotten any better but they haven't gotten any worse either. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any way they could meet that requirement of 15%? Mr. Shane: Not unless they removed some parking spaces. Mr. LePage: We did take the existing landscaped areas and improved all of those. We put new shrubs in all of those areas. We went to great lengths to improve that. Of course, in the spring there will be fresh flowers. I am sure you will be very pleased by what you will see. Mr. Piercecchi: I think your patio idea is an excellent idea. Mr. Morrow: H, does the 8% take into account the greenbelt area in the right-of-way? Mr. Shane: I was just going to make that point. That does not take in the area within the City right-of-way. If you added that in, it would probably make up the additional 7% or so. Mr. Morrow: The greenbelt around the patio area? Mr. Shane: It takes into consideration the patio area. It does not consider \.. the area in front of the building, which is all City right-of-way. From a technical standpoint that is not countable in the 15%. Mr. Morrow: But you get the same affect? Mr. Shane: Yes you get the same affect. Mr. LaPine: The property the City owns that has now been apparently leased to Mario's, is that lease exclusively for you? Nobody else can use that parking but you? Mr. LePage: The lease is for the use of our customers. That is written in the agreement. Mr. LaPine: H, you mentioned the old Livonia Tire Company, which is going to either be renovated or torn down. If, and when, that comes to pass, they do not have enough parking there to accommodate that building. Is that correct? Mr. Shane: That is right. Mr. rapine: Where is their parking going to come from? 13922 Mr. Shane: Unfortunately the owners of the tire store created a situation. They used to own the property next to them on the east as well as the property the tire store is on, in which case they had ample property to construct a new building or to use the old one. The `ow idea was that the City-owned property, which these folks now have a lease agreement on, could provide parking for the renovated old tire store building or a new building on the site. I think that is a reason the lease agreement states a time period. I think it is a five-year time period with a five year renewal. I think the idea of that was if within five years if there is a use for the tire store, the City might take a different position on leasing that City property to Mario's. I think that is the reason for the short time period. Mr. Iapine: Are you saying that in the next five years when Mario's has a lease on that property, that property can't be developed? Mr. Shane: Probably not because they simply wouldn't have enough parking. It is so small. In fact, the building takes up the entire site. From a practical standpoint, all by itself, it wouldn't be able to be developed unless they could obtain parking someplace else. Mr. Piercecchi: Would you revisit that area? You said you had 16 spaces also that you could use and you were going to let your employees utilize that area. Mr. Lance: The letter from A. J. Foley, he lets us use it any time during the day as it stag in the letter, and we can have our employccs park there if necessary. Mr. Piercecchi: But that use can be given or taken away. Mr. Lance: Yes it could be. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to seek some kind of permanent agreement? Mr. Lance: I think he is happy that we are there. We draw a lot of traffic to the area. I think we have supported all the businesses around us. I don't feel it would become an issue for us as far as him saying you can't do this anymore. Mr. Alanskas: The rendering you show there, is that exactly how the patio will look? Mr. LePage: One thing we didn't do is show the wrought iron fence, which would go inside the trccs. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked is you just passed out a picture of your restaurant and you show a bunch of dangling lights around the patio area. Mr. LePage: That is a different restaurant. We will not have that here. Mr. McCann: Your originally came because you had 170 seating capacity? 13923 Mr. Shane: They had the capacity to go to 201. That is what was approved for Mario's. Mr. McCann: It currently has 201 but isn't it true that the Planning Commission denied their request because they only had 170 seating and they wanted to expand it and the Planning Commission felt they had sufficient seating alluding to the number of restaurants in the area and denied the petition to expand it at that time, and here we are again expanding the existing use by another 48 seats. Is that correct? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: The traffic pattern coming in and out of your restaurant is difficult at this time and that is one of the things I really wasn't sure why when I went there at one time you got rid of all the parking in front of the building. When you try to drive in it appears the driveway on the other side is for the doctors' offices and not your use, and to try to get two cars coming and going between the building and your seating capacity there is extremely difficult. Don't you believe that by bringing that out you are creating more of a problem for your flow of traffic? Mr. LePage: Actually that was there before. It was a ratty looking island with stones and a few trees in it. It was not as large as that but it did start at the front of the building and move back toward the back of the building. What we have done, we have continued it another 10 to 12 feet. The other thing in regard to that what we tried to do, we did create a drive around through `r. the doctors' office. There is not supposed to be a parking space at the very end so somebody pulling into the doctors' office could, in fact, do a U-turn and come right back out. Unfortunately when our guy plowed it this week he put a pile of snow there so you can't do that. I just noticed that tonight when I was over there but that is the first time that has happened. Mr. McCann: When you are 1ii5.4y they will park all along there and it is confusing. Mr. LePage: Part of our problem is we weren't able to stripe the lot properly. As I said earlier, we did try to stripe it but unfortunately the snow was already flying. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this proposal? Frank Barton, 9839 Auburndale: I have lived in Livonia for 15 years. I live down the street about two blocks from Eastside Mario's. I saw it originally developed. It seems to be a very good establishment. They have been very good neighbors. We have been over to the restaurant several times. It is congested at times but what I know of the situation, I am the former President of the 13924 neighborhood association, the people that run the restaurant have been very responsive with all the congestion problems and at the same time have tried to alleviate it through directing traffic and working with the neighborhood businesses as far as getting '`,., additional parking. That area, and I have been on some of Bob Bennett's commissions for road beautification for the City. We have been trying to get Plymouth Road developed to improve the look and businesses along Plymouth Road for many years. I think the neighborhood residents are very, very pleased with Eastside Mario's spending the money they did developing the property. It is an excellent restaurant. They seem to be a good neighbor to us and in addition I think because restaurant traffic slows down in the summer, I don't think the additional 18 to 25 seats would do anything as far as increasing the traffic. I think it just might mean it would be a little more pleasant place to eat in the summertime. Tom Wozniak, 11407 Cranston: I am the current President of the Old Rosedale Garden Homeowners' Association. I have seen the congestion at the parking lot there and I believe that is probably the most obvious sign of the success this restaurant has experienced. I have been to the restaurant at its busies times when the lines have been the longest and I have always been able to find parking at the back of the lot. We are a homeowners' association of 660 homes, and I have had the task of coming here with a large group many times addressing various commissions about objections to various things. When, however, the neighborhood agrees to something, they usually send the officers to talk, and that is why I am here this evening. The neighborhood looks upon Eastside \41,. Mario's as a very positive influence. It is the most visible sign of the fact that things can and will happen on Plymouth Road. Also, we in the neighborhood have welcomed them into our particular neighborhood and we look at the patio as being something that will add to the atmosphere and fun that this restaurant tries to represent, and therefore we would appreciate any consideration you can give them in order for them to have continued success. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Sir, did they come and show you their plans? Did they have a mooting with the neighborhood association regarding this? Mr. Wozniak: Actually, I have travelled to the other side of town. We have friends over there and we had seen the restaurant on that side of town. So for me when the restaurant was built we thought the patio was a natural part of the restaurant that was built there. I have seen these plans, before I become aware of what was happening here just more recently. In terms of the actual patio, like I said it has been there since the thing was built. Mr. McCann: Did the association get together and discuss this topic or is this your personal point of view? Mr. Wozniak: The association is aware of the fact that the patio is there. Generally I would like to say that out of 660 residents, I have not heard any negative comments about the restaurant up to this point, and that is really very rare. We have had many things, 13925 including properties with 40 foot lots and waiver variances and the neighborhood is very vocal about not wanting to take up that particular area of our property for additional homes, but there has been no negative comment on Mario's. We just had a general meting on February 23 and this particular top was discussed there and there were no negative comments mentioned. Tino Delsignore, 32030 Plymouth Road: I would like to understand something. From what I understand they have 128 spaces now and they are deficient 10. They are going to add 15 and they are required another 24. Am I correct in saying they are going to be deficient 19 spaces if this is approved? Mr. Shane: Actually they are going to be deficient 28. The reason for that is the lease agreement that they signed with the City for City-owned property precludes them from using those spaces as a count towards satisfying the zoning ordinance so that is one reason why they had to obtain parking on adjacent properties because they would be required to go the Zoning Board of Appeals and they will probably use that as a justification because they do have in actuality 18 spaces on the City's piece and another 28 spaces on adjacent property, but the technical deficiency is 28. Mr. McCann: They cannot use the other properties against that because they are not permanent. In five years they would be in actuality short 28 spaces if they lose the other spots. Mr. Shane: In actuality they are short now 28 spaces because they cannot usP `, those spaces as a technical count towards satisfying the zoning ordinance, but in actuality they are not 28 spaces short. They are really short something like 10 because they have those spaces to use. From a technical point they are 28 spaces short but from a practical standpoint, it is much less than that. Mr. DelSignore: In the past we have had problems with parking. We had to resolve it by purchasing other property from the property owners next door in order to do that. I feel if this were passed, it would be unjust. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-5 be denied for the following reasons: 13926 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the 'tow Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use will be detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) that the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by Fastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor 'to. patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-5 be approved subject to the granting of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient off-street parking and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet #2 dated 2-6-95, as revised, prepared by VanBrouck & Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of additional seats to be located in the patio area is 48. 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. 13927 2) That the petitioner has produced written agreements for the use of off-site parking spaces sufficient to meet parking requirements. 3) That the increased seating requested is outdoor seating and therefore seasonal in nature and, consequently, will have a minimal effect on the normal operation of restaurant and adjacent uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: rapine, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Chairman declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #2-31-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side `, of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-2-5 until the Regular Meeting of March 14, 1995. 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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-6 by John DelSignore requesting waiver use approval to expand the utilization of an existing Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed expansion of an existing banquet hall (Laurel Manor) located east of Eckles Road between Schoolcraft Road and the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also 13928 received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Tastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the r... proposed expansion of the existing banquet hall is located on a C-2/P split zoned parcel of land and is in compliance with all district regulations. This site is in compliance with the parking requirements set forth in sections 18.37 (I) and 18.38 (13) of the Zoning Ordinance and has a Zoning Grant for the 9' parking spaces. Mr. Nowak presented the revised site plans. Mr. Piercecchi: Will all the mechanical units be screened? Mr. Nowak: Basically they would be from the north and the west. There would still be mechanical type units visible from the south and from a portion of the east. Mr. Morrow: Looking back from Schoolcraft Road will they be screened? Mr. Nowak: No sir. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. John DelSignore, 14680 Fairlane: We are going to add two more rooms on the north side and we know we had some problems trying to hide the equipment so we did put in the wall. I heard your comments that you can see the equipment from the expressway and I said I will put the wall towards the expressway in the back and a little bit on the side on Schoolcraft up to the addition. What I would like to do, I would like to right now see the board okay this the way it is. In the future I would like to screen the rest of the wall because it is very costly. Mr. Alanskas: John, number one, how is your parking? Mr. DelSignore: We have plenty. When we bought the other property next door to us two years ago we got almost three acres so we have plenty of parking. Mr. Alanskas: On your new addition, haw many feet do your patrons have to walk from the new addition to the lobby to get into the facility? Mr. DelSignore: Not too much because we are having another entrance towards the back. We will have two entrances, one in the back and one in the front. It will be a lot easier for our customers. Mr. Alanskas: Haw big is that entrance? Mr. DelSignore: It will be double door. Not like the front but there will be a lobby. fir.. 13929 Mr. McCann: Regarding the rooftop, on the west side that is where you are not going to have it covered. Then you are going to have SchooleLdit Road, which is industrial across the street, but there will be 'taw some visibility at this time regarding the traffic on Schoolcraft? Mr. DelSignore: Yes. The new addition will be screened all the way around. In the future we would like to continue all the way around. It would be more uniform and I think it would look better. Mr. Morrow: Mr. DelSignore you mention in the future. Could you put a time frame on that? Mr. DelSignore: I would say two to three years. Mr. Morrow: Do you think you could live with two years? Mr. DelSignore: Yes that sounds alright. Mr. Morrow: I don't want to work any hardship on you but I am like you I would like to see it completely uniform across there. Mr. DelSignore: Well you know my word is like a contract. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #2-32-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-6 by John DelSignore requesting waiver use approval to expand the utilization of an existing Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed expansion of an existing banquet hall (Laurel Manor) located east of Eckles Road between Schoolcraft Road and the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-6 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 1-30-95 (file date) prepared by DiComo Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 1-30-95 (file date) prepared by DiComo Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the roof-top mechanical units and trash dumpsters shown on the site plan shall be screened from public view as required by 13930 Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 within two years of the date of this resolution. for the following reasons: "ft. 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, T.Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is 95-2-2-7 by Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Inspection Department stating parking for this site would be in compliance with Ordinance 543 Sections 18.37 (I) and 18.37 (17) . Lone Star's deficient 21 spaces would be provided by a cross parking agreement with the Cantina Del Rio which has a surplus of 37 parking spaces. This proposal will also require submission to the Office of Assessment for a lot split and combination. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward. Drew Colson: I am with the Lone Star Steakhouse out of Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Colson presented the site plan. `r.. 13931 Mr. Alanskas: You said 262 seats inside the building. Then you said future dining. What do you mean by future dining? ,%ft. Mr. Colson: Are you talking about the expansion area? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, how big and for how many seats? Mr. Colson: Thirty-six. Mr. Alanskas: For outside? Mr. Colson: No that is indoors. 262 seats includes the new area also. Mr. Morrow: Is the future development part of this petition or is that to come back at a later date? Mr. Colson: I would like to have this approved at this time. Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have that? Mr. Shane: No. Mr. Morrow: That is not included in your notes? Mr. Shane: No. Mr. Colson: We can waive that for now. �.► Mr. McCann: I still want to get that a little clearer. According to this of the 262 seats, 24 seats will be on exterior patio or waiting area, so that includes the 24 seats on the exterior patio area. Is that what they are requesting the waiver use for today Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: They requested a restaurant total seating capacity for 238 seats inside. They have indicated future seating of an additional 24 so we took that to mean that they were asking at this time for 238 seats and would come back later for an additional 24. Mr. McCann: Now that 24 is including an exterior patio waiting area. Is that proposed to be built at this time? Mr. Shane: It includes that as well as the seating inside but the addition to the front that they are showing, it does not include that. Mr. McCann: I understand that but if we have 238 seats, what is the parking based on? Mr. Shane: It is based on 262 seats. Mr. McCann: So we include the 238 plus the 24. 13932 Mr. Shane: So they have a surplus either way you figure it. With the additional future seats or with the seats they now want, they are going to have a surplus of at least 20 parking spaces using Cantina Del Rio spaces. Mr. McCann: Using Cantina Del Rio's spaces. Mr. Shane: They will have a surplus either way. Dave Johnson: The parking spaces in the Cantina Del Rio parking lot are owned by us and we have entered into an agreement with Lone Star. Mr. McCann: These are excess spaces? Mr. Shane: Right. You take the two sites together and add up the parking spaces. Cantina Del Rio has excess spaces which the Lone Star Restaurant is going to lease. The total sum of that is that there will be 20 parking spaces surplus for the entire project. Mr. McCann: I am just trying to get this straight today. We are approving 262 seats under the waiver use approval today. That does not include another addition, which is approximately how many seats? Mr. Colson: 36 seats. Mr. McCann: Will that create a parking deficiency? Mr. Shane: No. `" w Mr. Alanskas: It shows in our notes that you came back with revised plans with only two signs but you still have the neon tubing showing. Mr. Colson: We did discuss that and that is my fault. I did not direct my architect. In our agreement trying to get the signage, we agreed to eliminate the ground sign and the neon tubing. That is what I agreed to in our workshop. Mr. Alanskas: So we are going with two wall signs and no neon tubing. Mr. Colson: I understood we could get three wall signs and eliminate the monument ground sign and neon tubing. Mr. Alanskas: We discussed one facing west, which would be the expressway, and one at the entrance. Where are you talking about for the third? Mr. Colson: On this side (he pointed it out) . Mr. Alanskas: Why? Mr. Colson: Simply because we have the facade. We need to match the two sides. 13933 Mr. Alanskas: You have one at the front of the building. So they can see that. You have one on the expressway side. So they can see that. So when they make their entrance they know they are going to your `r.. restaurant. Why would you need the other one. Mr. Colson: For visibility we would like to have it. I think the facade looks silly without it. Mr. Alanskas: I am just saying with two signs, I think you have plenty of signage for people to see your facility. Mr. Piercecchi: I kind of agree with that especially when Cantina Del Rio has just one. Mr. Shane: The building elevations which were submitted to our office yesterday showed two wall signs, and in any case the signs couldn't be a part of your approval now because they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals so they will come back to you under the control ordinance. The question can be resolved at that time. Mr. McCann: What about the neon? Mr. Shane: The neon was on there but I concluded it was a mistake on the architect's part. Mr. Colson: I am willing to give up the neon but if we can't get our signs then we have to come back to the neon. Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance allows one wall sign. If they want others, they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So it is really out of our hands. We are just trying to keep down on the glare. Mr. Colson: Your point was well taken at the last meeting and I apologize that got on there because our agreement was to remove that in hopes that we would get the wall signs. Mr. Morrow: That is why we have the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it looks like you have two signs with no neon and you are about to go under, you could probably cry hardship and you could probably get those signs. We like to vary our ordinance based on hardship and we are certainly not here to put you out of business. We think you will flourish with one sign, two signs and maybe three, if you get them, but we like to think there is a hardship before we grant them, but that is up to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was 13934 #2-33-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-7 by Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-2-7 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SA-1 dated 2-23-95, as revised, prepared by Winter Stucky Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-3 and A-4 dated 2-23-95, as revised prepared by Winter Stucky Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to, except that the neon tubing shown on each building elevation is not approved and shall be eliminated. 3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 2-24-95 prepared by Winter Stucky Architects which shall include a complete underground sprinkler system is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That there shall be no ground (monument) sign permitted on the subject site. 5) That the maximum number of customer seats, including patio 'towseating, shall not exceed 262. 6) That the off-street parking spaces shall be double striped. 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. 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. LaPine: I just want the record to show I am voting against this proposal basically because I was opposed to the C-2 zoning going in there. I think Mr. Johnson should be commended for pulling back Builder's Square but Council, in their wisdom, went ahead and 13935 put in C-2 zoning but I still go back to the dream that Mr. Johnson had there. I think that may have come to pass if we would have hung on here. I am not opposed to any restaurant going in there. I am just opposed to three to four restaurants in a raw. If we would have had the original plan that was submitted to this body eight or nine years ago when we had the high-rise office buildings with the restaurants throughout the whole complex, which I think was a great idea, I would have no objection to the restaurant, but I do have my doubts about having restaurant row in there and that is what it looks like it is going to become. Once we grant that waiver use, it goes with the land. If one of these restaurants goes under, you could have a McDonalds, they have the zoning, they have the waiver use. You could have a Bates go in there. You can have anything going in there. You could have a Coney Island as long as they have the zoning and the waiver use. To me we are just jumping in here to get a restaurant so my vote is going to be no. Mr. McCann: I have to agree with Mr. T.Pine. I believe this was one of the best developments we had in the City of Livonia. I believe in Mr. Johnson. I believe in what he was attempting to do there. I know economic changes made him reconsider his original design. However, I still don't believe commercial is the best use in there. I voted against commercial going into that area because I truly believe that area in three to four years will be wide open to office development. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, `o' NAYS: LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-8 by Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Shane: The letter I read from the Inspection Department on the previous petition had a last paragraph that was pertinent to this petition. I will read that. Cantina Del Rio currently holds a Class C license and is within 1000 feet of the proposed Lone Star Restaurant. Utilization of a Class C liquor license will require the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: We will go the petitioner. Is there anything you want to tell us in particular about the liquor license? John Carlin: I would ask that the Commission approve it and waive the 1000 13936 foot rule. I would like to point out that when this site was originally planned in 1985 there were five restaurants planned at that time, and that has now been reduced to four with Cantina Del Rio being the first. Mr. TaPine: But they weren't all together. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have your license? Mr. Carlin: No we are asking for one of the City's quota licenses. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #2-34-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-8 by Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-2-8 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation requirement by the City Council 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. 3) That the proposed use is a normal accessary use to the type of restaurant within which it will be used. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, NAYS: LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543 removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as permitted uses. 13937 Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, do you have any correspondence? Mr. Shane: None other than a letter from the Mayor to yourselves. Mr. McCann: We have received that letter suggesting that after the public hearing we may consider tabling it for further discussion. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition since the Planning Commission is the petitioner? There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-6-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #2-35-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543 removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as permitted uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-12-6-6 until date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mc. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend the C-2 district of Zoning Ordinance #543 to make second hand stores and rummage shops waiver uses. Mr. McCann: H, if you could give a description of the ordinance to the audience. Mr. Shane: What the Planning Commission is attempting to do here is to add to the waiver uses in the C-2 district, uses that are not automatically permitted but would require a public hearing and City Council approval, and what the issue is here is second hand stores and rummage shops, which seem to be proliferating in different areas of the City. The Planning Commission would like to have better control over those kinds of uses, and you can do that with the waiver use process. That is what this amendment would do. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-6-7 closed. 13938 On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #2-36-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend the C-2 district of Zoning Ordinance #543 to make second hand stores and rummage shops waiver uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-6-7 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide the City with more control over the location, number and nature of certain types of uses. 2) That the proposed amendment is needed so as to control the number and location of the subject uses. 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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Harrison Woods Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Harrison Avenue, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12. `o. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter ftcci the Department of Parks and Recreation stating their department found no problems or discrepancies with this preliminary plat. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this development. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police Department has no objection to the site plan. They do recommend the installation of a stop sign for northbound Harrison at 7 Mile in response to the Harrison Woods preliminary plat. Lastly, we have received a letter fLon► the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. They will require however that storm drainage from the subdivision be outletted to Livonia Drain #8 located near the intersection of Clarita and Lathers Avenues. (The above outlet is in lieu of the proposed off-site ditch shown on the preliminary plat.) Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Jerry Brady, 17150 Inkster, Redford: Originally we rezoned the property on the east side and the west side of an existing road right-of-way, 13939 which was Harrison Road, which we dedicated some property to the west to give them a full right-of-way for that street. There has been some time trying to get that street to go all the way through at one time and this is maybe a part solution. I don't know. I think we conform to all the lot sizes, etc. As to the engineering drawings, my engineer is here. We have made those changes on the drawing. Mr. LaPine: Are you referring to the fact you are not going to have a catch basin? You are going to go into the drain? Mr. Brady: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Can you give us what type of homes will go in there and the price range and things of that nature? Mr. Brady: There will be three proposed models, a ranch, a colonial and a contemporary. The price range is about $130,000 to $150,000. Mr. LaPine: Will they be brick? Mr. Brady: Some brick in the front. Mr. McCann: How many square feet? Mr. Brady: All around 1500 square feet. Mr. McCann: Attached garages? *raw Mr. Brady: Yes sir. Mr. Morrow: One of the deficiencies we looked at was the lots that side on Seven Mile Road are a little short of our requirements. Have you done anything to those lots that would beef up the landscaping or greenbelt along Seven Mile Road as part of your plat? Mr. Brady: We would be willing to do that and not have any ingress and egress off Seven Mile Road. Some of that land was deficient when we gave it as right-of-way. Mr. Morrow: H, what would we do in that area? Is it part of the plat requirement of the developer to put in a greenbelt along Seven Mile and is the staff satisfied with his proposal? Mr. Shane: I would be satisfied if it included a 20 foot greenbelt along the Seven Mile Road right-of-way. Actually a greenbelt on the plat. Then he could come back before final plat and propose a landscape plan. That would satisfy me. Mr. Morrow: Is that on the plan we have now? Mr. Shane: Not the greenbelt. `a.. 13940 Mr. Brady: I would be more than happy to do that. Mr. Morrow: You will add the greenbelt to those two lots that side on Seven Mile and then before we go to final plat approval we will develop some sort of a landscape for that greenbelt. Mr. Brady: Consider it done. Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed those two lots are 70 and 72.45 feet wide. Will you use up that extra 10 and 12 feet then as part of the greenbelt? Mr. Brady: I would stagger those setbacks. I would try to maintain the building separations throughout the sub and still give you the 20 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: Would that satisfy our needs? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: H, the sidewalks, etc. would come under the zoning regulations? Mr. Shane: They will come under the platting regulations. That will be a requirement of the Engineering Department on the final plat. Mr. McCann: So we don't need to address that? Mr. Shane: No. Lillian Warpup, 18968 Brentwood: These homes would be going in behind my home. I would like to know the size of the lots. Mr. Shane: The smallest ones are 60 foot wide by 120 foot deep. Ms. Warpup: I would like to know how wide Harrison is going to be. Mr. Shane: Harrison is going to be 60 foot in width, the total right-of-way. It will be the same as Brentwood. Ms. Warpup: Haw are they going to manage to turn around? Is that going to dead end there? Mr. Shane: They will have to provide a small T turnaround temporarily until Harrison Road is carried further south. Ken Klein, 18956 Brentwood: I was over to the Planning Commission two weeks ago and on the master plan I saw Lot No. 8 where they show the barricade, all he said at that time it was going to be a corrugated barricade at the end of the street. It wasn't going to go to Clarita. How is the Fire Department going to turn around? The treco that are in that area. It has been like this for many, many years and when they come in to develop this are they going to wholesale all those trccs out of there or leave 13941 them for people to enjoy when they move in there or are they going to have to buy new trccc? Also, the engineer I talked to two weeks ago mentioned the easement behind our property. They 'tor street going to do some drainage control. When they paved our street several years ago some of the properties, not mine but my neighbor on Lot #6, had a small drainage problem on their back property. It came through into the ditch that we used to have back there. That now became inactive and her property and my property and anyone else's that is low back there has a problem until total frost is gone and the spring April rain is gone. My neighbor did approach the City several years back and wanted suggestions because with this small ditch being dry now, it was not draining her back, and they had no solutions for her. The engineer indicated two weeks ago there would be a drainage system in the easement between the houses on Brentwood and Harrison. Also, I see on the schematic we have here now we are calling the RUF on the west side of Harrison Woods. Is that a new future development after Harrison? Two weeks ago I received this notice registered mail Saturday. I thought the requirement was 500 feet. Mr. Shane: For zoning issues it is 500 feet but not for preliminary plat. Mr. Klein: I wondered because I had neighbors to the south of me and the people across the street did not get notices. I am reassured the type of houses will be comparable to the neighborhood. Bruce Davidson, 18914 Brentwood: I would like this commission to know that we 'tow fact support what is happening here with Harrison Woods. In fact that is not strong enough. My mother is here tonight and she is a property owner and a person that has resided in this community since this community was a city. Since 1949 we have lived at this address. What I was going to say was we vehemently oppose this project. With that aside, we have a question about the proposed Harrison Street continuing through to Clarita. If we are vehemently opposed to Harrison Woods words cannot express adequately how we feel about Harrison Street going all the way through. We already have a traffic problem and some other folks here earlier were discussing their flooding problem. My mom can attest to how clay soil holds water and haw poorly the property around there drains. If this proposed sub doPs indeed get constructed, I hope we don't have increased problems with water. I trust my City but I trust them only so far. I hope they do a good job with their studies, and I hope that our skating rinks don't get any deeper. Getting back to Harrison Street. It sounds like this is going to become a reality fairly soon. Please don't put that street through. We have enough traffic on Brentwood Avenue. In fact, it is quite common to hear the rumble of the fire trucks cutting through Brentwood to get to that fire station, which is located on Clarita and Middlebelt. If they had access to get to their fire house from some other portions of Livonia, it is just one more rumble down the street. The police 13942 want stop signs on proposed Harrison Street. Let me tell you, we have had stop signs on Brentwood Avenue. That doesn't slow anybody down. It is not kids racing around. I am up at six o'clock in the morning. It is adults racing 45 m.p.h. down Brentwood to get to work. There are a lot of problems in the world and in the City of Livonia. This proposed Harrison sub is just going to add to the problems. The headaches that we will experience, you folks don't live there. I don't pretend to know where everybody lives but I don't think you live on Brentwood. As much as the Clarenceville School District needs more warm bodies, little children, that is great, that is a reality. We need more money to pump into the coffers of the City but I am a NIMBI (not in my back yard) . I really am. I don't like it and I really don't like the thought of Harrison Street being built and I really, really don't like Harrison Street exiting into Clarita. If it has to be done, put a barricade there. There is a barricade on Clarita where it terminates near Lathers and that sufficed for years. Mr. Klein: He talked about surveys. We incorporated a neighborhood watch last summer. The Traffic Commission and Police Department of the City of Livonia's idea of a traffic survey is putting out their radar detector for two hours and taking it away. How can you determine anything in two hours? Mr. McCann: That is not something we can deal with tonight. Mr. Klein: We have been trying to get a stop sign but we haven't yet. 'err. Mr. McCann: Our duty here tonight is to deal with the preliminary plat. Mr. Klein: I realize that but they talked about street surveys and I had to say something. If they do open up Harrison to Clarita in the future, he is right. The Fire Department, it is another route for them to get back instead of using the main streets. Mr. McCann: We will go back to the petitioner for his continents regarding this proposal. Mr. Brady: As to the trees, we are going to try to save every tree that is possible. It only enhances the value of the house. Some of them have to be destroyed. As to the drainage, we will have a state- of-the-arts drainage system incorporated into these drawings. It may eliminate all of the problems on the adjacent lots. As to the barricade or the T turnaround, we can accommodate that. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, the preliminary plat meets all the requirements? Mr. Shane: Yes it does. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval for Harrison Woods Subdivision closed. 4r• 13943 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. TaPine and unanimously approved, it was #2-37-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on `�. February 28, 1995, by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat Approval for Harrison Woods Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Harrison Avenue, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Harrison Woods Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to the following additional conditions: 1) That a landscape plan showing the proposed treatment of a 20 foot wide greenbelt easement which shall be made a part of the Preliminary Plat, and which shall be located on the north side of lots abutting Seven Mile Road, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the Final Plat; 2) That a subdivision entrance marker plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. `. 2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to development of the subject lands. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Morrow: Just a comment to the people here. Item number two was a discussion on zoning. The zoning already exists on this and all they are doing is technically meeting the plat act requirements of the State of Michigan. We cannot preclude them from developing their property if it meets the plat act. That is why it is being approved tonight. We have done the best we can. What happens to Harrison in the future, only time can tell. I just wanted to let you know why it was approved tonight. Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to make one comment. I am from the same area and I am really happy to see that new houses will go up in the Clarenceville area. I am an original Clarenceville person. It makes me happy to think it is growing. 13944 Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 698th Regular Meeting held on February 14, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #2-38-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 698th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 1995 are hereby approved. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the building located at 37373 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Nowak: The proposed signage was not in conformance with the zoning ordinance so the petitioner sought and was granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposal is for three ground signs, one sign in the front yard, one in the side yard abutting Newburgh, and one near the rear entrance to the building. It would consist of two 12 sq. ft. signs saying ‘oift. "Dearborn Federal Credit Union". That would be the signage in front of the building and on the west side yard. Adjacent to the rear of the building is a 5 sq. ft. sign saying "Livonia Financial Center". Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Steve Jaskowski: I am the Building and Facility Manager for Dearborn Federal Credit Union. I also have Gary Cooper here, who is our architect. As you can see and as we addressed before, two ground signs, one on Newburgh and one on Seven Mile Road. The one on Newburgh is at the entranceway. The one on Seven Mile just identifies the building and a small sign on the that says "Livonia Financial Center". This is just an identification sign. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #2-39-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit application by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the building located at 37373 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions: 13945 1) That the Sign Plan, defined as Sheet A509 dated Feb. 2, 1995, as revised, by Quinn Evans Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet L001 dated Feb. 2, 1995, as revised, by Quinn Evans Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 699th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 28, 1995 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION Z:'Lee Mo ow, - etary ATTEST: L ,%J' McCann, dice Chairman j9 ,r