Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-11-30 13128 MINUTES OF THE 675th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 30, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 675th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas Brenda Lee Fandrei Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat 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 '`.y have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Amended Petition 93-8-1-12 by Tri-West Development Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUFA to R-1A. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Tim Phillips indicating they would allow Tri-West Development to rezone Lot 8 in B. E. Taylor's Subdivision from RUF to R-1. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Sam Baki: I am with Tri-West Development. We are proposing to rezone the property to R-1. I have some copies of the proposed site, how we want to lay it out, and samples of the ranches we are going to use. 13129 Mr. Engebretson: So everybody understands what is going on here this evening, this petition is a rezoning request and the petitioner is offering some sketches as to how he would propose to plat this property. Apparently he intends to make some comments regarding these plans. However, the only issue that is going to be determined here this evening is whether or not this zoning change is going to occur. Mr. Baki: We came here before and presented this for less land. We had a different proposal so we changed the whole proposal to accommodate what most of the people were against at the first meeting. This proposal is coming off Five Mile between Henry Ruff and Spanich Court and it is close to half way between those streets. We have the lots accommodate the R-1 zoning, which is minimum 60 foot wide lots and overall square footage of the land is 7200 square feet. We are proposing to rezone it to R-1 as cluster homes. We are not going to plat the property. We are going to go as cluster homes on this site. The proposal for cluster homes is minimum of 10 feet between homes, which we will accommodate. We are still accommodating the square footage requirement per lot. Mr. Tent: Mr. Baki, are these going to be condominiums or a cluster development? Mr. Baki: Cluster development type homes. Mr. Tent: There is no indication they may be diverted to condominiums? Mr. Baki: No, no condominiums. They are going to be cluster homes. Mr. Tent: They are all going to be privately owned? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Tent: Then each home will be maintained by the owner? Mr. Baki: Exactly. We are going to, at a later date, request something so everybody will have their own lot. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, I see the roadway is 50 feet wide. Is that within our specification? Mr. Nagy: If it is to be a publicly dedicated road, it would have to be 60 feet of right-of-way. If it is a private road, it would be under the jurisdiction of the association and would therefore not be dedicated to the City of Livonia where we would have to maintain the roads by way of street plowing, picking up refuse, delivering the mail and those kinds of things. If it remains private, it could be a 50 foot road. Mr. Tent: At this point we are looking at a 50 foot road. Would a 60 foot road negate any part of this development? Mr. Nagy: Judging by the dimensions that I see here on the map, and this is the first time I have seen this layout, it appears widening the road by an additional 10 feet would have a serious impact on the depth of the lots. 13130 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you clarify what this proposal consists of that is different from the standard R-1 zoning district where we would come through with a conventional plat process. I am not exactly sure I understand the cluster home concept as it pertains to developing detached single family homes in an R-1 district that bypasses that process. \r. Mr. Nagy: With a conventional plat there is a subdivision plan that is prepared that would detail the roads, the lot layouts, the lot sizes and dimensions, and upon the recording of that plat and improvement of the property individual lots would be sold and homes built on it and there would be a conveyance of the property to a property owner and the road itself would be dedicated to the City of Livonia for maintenance purposes. There would be full street pavement, sidewalks, etc. It would be like any other subdivision in the City of Livonia. There is a option within the R-1 zoning district regulation for a single family cluster. To qualify for that you would have to submit pursuant to that section of the ordinance, and there would be a hearing and a plan for the development of that property that would regulate that development. It would not be a typical subdivision plan, it would be a site plan. How that would differ in terms of a physical layout from a subdivision is that in a cluster you can have the individual homes clustered together but no more than a maximum of three in a cluster. It could be one by itself. It could be two or three sharing a common wall between garages or between some other area. To qualify for that the sites usually have to have some unique features. In order to try to cluster you would probably protect some natural features, like wetlands or some other kinds of things where the City would determine it is in its best interest to cluster these homes rather than have them on individual lots to take better advantage of the site. The roads then become private roads. It is then the responsibility of all the homeowners within that cluster project to maintain the roads, to maintain the grounds, that kind of thing. While the homes would tend to look like other homes in the City, the association would own in common all the land area and the roads and they would share a maintenance agreement for their upkeep. Mr. Engebretson: It has similarities to a condominium type arrangement but there are some differences also. Mr. Nagy: If it is a true cluster. I am not sure whether he is really talking about a true cluster or is he now talking about the newer wrinkle in planning, the site condominium. I am not sure but to answer your question, cluster pursuant to our ordinance is a variation of a condominium association. Mr. Engebretson: Could you define more precisely what you mean by a cluster development? Mr. Baki: It is like what he explained, a regular subdivision with separate homes, not attached at all. The only purpose of calling it cluster homes is because of the principle. To plot a subdivision it takes 13131 up to two years and we are going as cluster homes to avoid the wait of two years. That is the only difference. We are following subdivision standard procedures between lot sizes, etc. except we are going as cluster homes so we can have them done faster. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I must ask you what your opinion is as to how long it takes us to go through the platting process? I know it doesn't take two years. Mr. Nagy: That is true. The local unit of government does not take near that long but in order to record a plat at the state level you not only have to deal with the local unit of government, you have to deal with the county and state levels. The DNR gets involved as well in reviewing those plats. In terms of all those agencies it can take up to two years, but I have heard of platting property in less than two years. It all depends on the complexity of the project, how many subdivisions are already pending at these various agencies. It can take anywhere from one year to two years. Mr. Engebretson: I noticed that Livonia Builders, who went through the whole process during this calendar year, are pushing dirt down there so obviously it implies that they have gone through all the levels of government that they need to get approval from. I am just wondering if this is a valid reason for going this cluster approach. Are we circumventing some control the City has by doing this as compared with going through a standard plat process? Mrs. Fandrei: John, it sounds like we don't have a specific definition for the cluster concept. Mr. Nagy: We do have it in the ordinance. Mrs. Fandrei: Are you comfortable with what you see here? Mr. Nagy: It is my opinion this property is relatively small and I think the City would be better served if it were actually platted in the conventional way. While I certainly can appreciate the time constraints and desires of this developer to try to bring it on the market as soon as possible, I just think from our City standpoint having at least the road publicly dedicated so we are not worried about the ongoing maintenance, the upkeep, to see that it is properly built to City standards, I am more comfortable with the traditional platting process. Mrs. Fandrei: I would agree. One of my concerns is the 55 x 110 lot size and we are looking at 20 lots in this small area. Would that 55 x 110 lot size on the south side of this street, would that meet the ordinance? Mr. Nagy: It is 66 x 110 and it would meet the area requirement for the lot. It would come up with the 7200 square feet minimum lot requirement. Mrs. Fandrei: We have, that I remember, two privately dedicated roads, Van Road and I don't remember the other one. Mr. Nagy: Portions of Van Road and in the new Bayberry Park Development at Harrison north of Five Mile. 13132 Mrs. Fandrei: The problem with a small private road like this as I remember, since I have driven by Van Road for the last 22 years, is garbage. It is the responsibility of every homeowner and it piles up on Seven Mile any which way that the homeowners get it out there and it can be quite a distraction and a mess. I have a problem with this private dedication. I definitely agree with John that the "sou. City would be best served if we went through the process. My other question Mr. Baki, the two at the south end on 1/2 acre lots, were you still planning on building one of those for yourself? Mr. Baki: I am not sure yet. We are leaving it open. Mr. Tent: This is back to Mr. Nagy again. His description of a cluster development, as I understood it, differs from Mr. Baki's opinion as to what it would be like. Mr. Baki may be confused. I asked him the question would it be private ownership and he indicated yes; would they all be responsible for their exterior maintenance and he indicated yes; would there be an association involved with the maintenance and he said no it would be private. In this case, according to our definition, it would be a common wall and if it was a cluster it would be similar to what they have at Five Mile and Harrison. Mr. Nagy: The Five Mile and Harrison project is, in fact, a cluster development pursuant to our ordinance. Nothing says you have to attach them in the cluster. They do not have to be attached. If they are to be attached, there can be no more than three. Mr. Tent: What about the exterior common grounds? Mr. Nagy: There still will be common elements because in order to convey Nurproperty, they wouldn't be conveying property on a publicly dedicated road. The land area would have to be held in common. Mr. Tent: That concerns me. If this were platted as individual homes, it would be more compatible to the cluster type units. I will defer this until we get further into that. Mr. Alanskas: What price range would these cluster homes be? Mr. Baki: We are starting at $135,000. Mr. Alanskas: How many square feet? Mr. Baki: Minimum 1550 square feet. Mr. Alanskas: Would they have basements? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Would they be brick? Mr. Baki: Some brick. It is open right now. We haven't finalized how much brick. 13133 Mr. Alanskas: I was looking at the size of these bedrooms. You have 9'6" x 10' . They are not very big. Mr. Baki: This is one of the models. We have different sizes. That house is 1350 square feet. The one with the family room is a total of 1720 square feet. Without the family room it would be 1500 square feet. We have them as two different square footage. Mr. Morrow: I want to point out that we are here to talk about zoning tonight. Certainly our comments are a good input; however, we cannot condition zoning and if that zoning were to be granted that plan could change eight times between now and when we get back to it with either a site plan or plat, and at that time we will certainly talk about roads and houses and square footage and things of that nature but right now it is primarily zoning. I don't want the petitioner to construe what he hears here tonight to necessarily mean we would condition the zoning if it were approved. Mr. LaPine: I have two things I want to ask. John, a private road, assuming this went through as it is, at sometime can the residents of the sub ask the City to take over the road? Mr. Nagy: Not unless the residents would bring it up to City standards. The City doesn't take any roads. A road has to be constructed to City standards, which would be proper thickness of pavement, proper width. It would have to be within a right-of-way of sufficient width to maintain it. If it was initially constructed to City specifications and then ultimately dedicated, yes the City would take it over. Nothing says you can't put in a public road and not plat. You can put in that road to City standards within a 60 foot right-of-way and dedicate it to the City of Livonia and then go and develop the balance of the property so then it would be under City maintenance. Mr. Baki: We are going to be building this road to City standards because we are going to allocate this road to the City. As you mentioned earlier, the only reason we went with a 50 foot wide street was because of the depth of the property. We are going to build a road according to City standards because we are planning on allocating this road to the City. Mr. LaPine: I guess the other question I have, on one side of the road the lots are 110 feet deep and the other side is 140. Why can't those lots that are 140 become 130 and add the 10 feet onto the road? Mr. Baki: Because we have to be 75 feet away from a major road. We are building a 30 foot berm so we are still getting about 110 on both sides as usable lots. The other 30 foot is not usable. It will be just a green area that is not buildable. Mr. LaPine: The other point, I agree with Mr. Morrow. We are only talking tonight about zoning and I understand we always bring up what the houses are going to be like, etc. , but the question is do we think this is the right area to have this type of zoning and apparently 13134 it shows on our land use as residential, therefore, even if we rezone this and this gentleman decides he is not going to develop it, in the future whoever develops it the zoning will be there. I agree with Mr. Morrow we are only talking about the zoning change at this junction. `ft. Mrs. Fandrei: You just indicated that you wanted a 60 foot road to be dedicated to the City, right? Mr. Baki: No, 50 foot. Mrs. Fandrei: So you are sticking with the 50. John, can it be dedicated at 50 feet to the City? Mr. Nagy: It is possible. It would not be the first road at 50 feet wide that has been dedicated to the City of Livonia. Our standard is 60 feet but there are exceptions. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposed zoning change. Art Oswalt, 30544 Hoy: That is Lot 19. We have had three proposals now. Proposal number one and two were nice size lots and now I am concerned because we are looking at 60' x 120' lot sizes and I look at some of the other ones that are 66' x 110' and the lot sizes seem to be decreasing down. The other thing is this cluster homes. If we have to give 10 foot on each side of the lot, that would mean you would have a lot size or a home that couldn't extend no more than 40 feet. I am confused. on cluster because I thought maybe these three homes would be together and then you would have 10 foot, 10 foot and 10 foot and then you would move down and have something `_ completely different. This doesn't fit in with the original residential use that we were looking at. At this particular time I am against this proposal. I think there are other ones that could fit better. Joseph Kappler, 15071 Flamingo: That is on the corner of Flamingo and Hoy. You have two houses here and there is only an entrance of 64 feet and on garbage day where are they going to put their garbage? Are they going to put it in front of my house which I don't want? On top of that it is going to tear up the water line. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, while I don't want to give you the impression I am not concerned about the points you make, the two lots that border the area that are in your area are not a part of this proposal. They have been deleted. Mr. Kappler: You have a 100 foot circle here. How is the garbage truck going to turn around? Mr. Engebretson: I think they can do that. John, 100 feet will allow any fire truck or other kind of vehicle to make proper turns won't it? Mr. Nagy: Again, that is not according to City standards. Our requirement is 120 feet. I have a scale with me and I scaled it and it is actually 120 feet. The cul-de-sac is 120 feet in diameter and trucks can therefore make the turn. 13135 Mr. Baki: It could be 120 feet. We have plenty of room at that corner. We have enough depth to put a 120 foot circle for trucks or anything to turn around. Robert Pollock, 30505 Hoy: That is Lot 35. I am also objecting to the rezoning from RUFA to R-1. First of all, what is the difference between R-1 Now and R-1A? Mr. Engebretson: The R-1A designation sir that was added to the original proposal sets a higher standard as to the number of square feet that are required for each unit and the number of square feet designated by this A suffix would make the size of those homes compatible with the other homes in the area. Mr. Pollock: It is still staying with the 60' x 120'? Mr. Engebretson: That is correct. Mr. Pollock: I would still be objecting to that dimension. I think that the original 1/2 acre lots, of course, is ideal. I understand City Council doesn't seem to be leaning that way. If anything, I would like to see a minimum of R-3, 80 foot and with that you would get three lots for every four and you would still maintain some relatively decent lot sizes. You could put nicer homes with bedrooms that were larger and more fitting with the area. Again, with the cluster home designation, of course that isn't with the zoning, but it does leave anything to the imagination. Again, with too many changes already, it doesn't seem like anything has been well planned out. The private lot as far as Spanich Court as an original access lot, it was stated that it would be $100,000 to upgrade that to City standards to use that as an access road and now we are talking first private and then City. Which way is it going to go? It just seems like it is almost a show game and guess which one it is going to be when it ends. Gene Szewski, 30443 Hoy: That is Lot 37. I object to this because I moved out here 33 years ago to have some openness and now they are trying to put a house everywhere they can put it. I think we should have the 1/2 acre lots. If they want to build, let them build facing Five Mile Road on the lots that are there. I object to it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-8-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #11-214-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Amended Petition 93-8-1-12 by Tri-West Development Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUFA to R-1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-8-1-12 be approved for the following reasons: 13136 1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject property for medium density residential land use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. '41mir 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the continuation of a residential land use for the subject property thus preventing the encroachment of additional commercial uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #I543, as amended. Mr. Tent: I am going to support this petition also. I would like to indicate this is strictly a zoning change now. We are going to get a shot at the site plan so all we are looking at now is strictly the zoning and we will get a chance to work with the developer to come up with something other than the cluster type of homes. Mr. Engebretson: It is my understanding that it will come back with a site plan. I would like to go on record as to why I oppose the proposal. I am concerned that as we move through this process we keep packing more and more in and this proposal is getting away from the standard R-1 platting process and going to the cluster approach. This zoning, if granted, with the understanding there are going to be detached single family homes built there approximately 1550 square feet in size, which is indeed compatible size wise with all the homes in the neighborhood, the fact of the matter is there is no assurance because we can't condition zoning. There is no assurance that is what we are going to get. I think whereas we started out with a shaky proposal with the original petition that we went through a number of weeks ago, I think we have stepped backwards and we have come to a less desirable proposal. There are a number of things I find of great concern. Though I do think that R-1A may be an appropriate zoning district to provide for those 1550 square foot homes, which happens to be 30 square feet less than the average home in the entire area and according to the SEV of all the homes in that area the average price would be compatible, if not more expensive, than the average homes in the area. I think it started out on the right track but I am not sure it ended up in the right place. That is why I oppose the petition. It sounds like there is support to pass it. If it does pass, I would hope we would do a very diligent job as it goes through the site plan process to assure that we get something that is compatible to that neighborhood. Mrs. Fandrei: I have a similar comment. Our original proposal called for fewer homes in this amount of acreage and I feel this is a little too dense for the area considering what was first proposed to us. I also want to go on record as to why I am against this petition. 13137 Mr. LaPine: The reason I proposed approval, we are only talking about zoning here. Once we get the site plan if he wants 20 homes, we can make it 18. There is a lot of things we can do once the site plan gets to us. Until such time as we get the site plan we are talking about things we don't really have anything to do with tonight. We are only talking zoning. Who knows, this gentleman might find Nor somewhere along the line he doesn't want to go along with the project and if the land is zoned there, someone else could come up with a different proposal. All we are talking tonight is the zoning. What we do with the site plan is a different situation and we can do anything we want when we get to that point. I don't see anything wrong with approving the rezoning petition. Mr. McCann: I agree with Mr. LaPine. I don't believe in cluster homes. I don't think that is going to be the proper use in the area. I do believe we have been looking at this area now for six to seven years and we have been considering the whole time what is the proper use. Everyone seems to agree R-1A is appropriate for the area. I don't want to revisit this another time. As Mr. LaPine said I would rather they came back with the proper plat. That is where I am coming from. Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to dwell on this but I don't think they are planning on coming back with a plat, I think they are coming back with a site plan. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: Fandrei, Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: None `r. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-1-14 by Plymouth Road Development Co. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I represent the petitioner, Plymouth Road Development Company. I am sure the Commission is aware that there was recently a waiver use granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and several years prior to that there was a first waiver use that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It seems the type of prospective tenants that the property owner is 13138 receiving obviously in the last couple of years fit in more properly with the C-2 type of zoning. It has been suggested to him by certain people in the City that with this type of waiver use that has been granted that the property should be rezoned so he does not have to keep coming back for a waiver use at the Zoning Board of Appeals. That is the reason we are here. We wish to not �• circumvent the zoning process but the waiver use was necessitated by the particular tenant that had to secure a rapid approval. As you know, the zoning process takes close to four months and going through that process, he would have lost the tenant. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, what is the vacancy rate there in that shopping center? Mr. Tangora: I am not sure. I think with this proposed tenant, it just about fills it up. Mr. Tent: Could you share with us who the proposed tenant would be? Mr. Tangora: Yes it is a children's entertainment center, something like a Kings Kingdom. Mr. Tent: Would that be like Major Magic? Mr. Tangora: Similar to that. It is a very popular thing at the moment. Mr. Tent: Would that be operational the way it is now or would they have to have some different zoning? Mr. Tangora: I understand they have to fit into a C-2 zoning or a waiver. ,.. Mr. Tent: Is that in right now? Mr. Tangora: Yes they have signed a lease and prepared all their development plans for the interior of the building and they should be under construction very soon. Mr. Tent: If they got this zoning change, then this shopping center would be completely filled. Is that correct? Mr. Tangora: Four units would still be vacant. Mr. Tent: If we granted the C-2 zoning then those other four units would be affected also and we wouldn't get a chance to look at it again because they would comply with the zoning. Mr. Tangora: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: John, I am just curious about something. I looked up the ordinance today and the billiard parlor and restaurant they want to put in this child center is not a permitted use in a C-1 district. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. 13139 Mr. LaPine: The only way you can get a variance to that, the way I review it, is a waiver use which has to come before the Planning Commission and review by the City Council. How does the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a waiver use? Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Board did not grant a waiver use. They granted a 'tor variance so as to allow the use within the C-1 district. The Zoning Board did not process a petition pursuant to the waiver use section of our Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board found hardship and practical difficulty and granted an exception to the use and allowed it. Mr. LaPine: Wouldn't the normal procedure be to come to the Planning Commission and City Council? Mr. Nagy: I would think that would be the prudent way. Mr. LaPine: So somebody was able to find a way to circumvent the way the ordinance is written. Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Board did hear the case and they accepted the petition and they rendered their decision. Mr. LaPine: Did they get an opinion from the City Attorney if they had the authority to do that? Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, do we know what the variance was that was granted on this latest Kids Kingdom? Were there any excessive video games or was it just allowing the use? What was the variance they got? Do you '44111. know Mr. Tangora? Mr. Tangora: I didn't represent the petitioner at the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Morrow: I am just wondering what the variance was other than allowing the use. Mr. Tangora: Let me read it because this is the first time I have seen it. As I said I didn't represent the petitioner and it was just handed to me and I haven't even read it over. I am just picking up parts of it, "as accessory uses this facility will have a 90 seat restaurant and a number of mechanical amusement devices some of which will dispense redemption coupons". I think that is about the extent of it. Mr. Morrow: Is it primarily a restaurant? Mr. Tangora: It is primarily a children's play area that has food areas. I have seen them before and they have places to eat so parents can come in and eat while they are watching. The type of food you are talking about is hot dogs, potato chips and pop, etc. but they have seats around the play area so parents can have snacks while they are watching their children play. 13140 Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Tangora, I realize we are not talking about the rest of the building, just not having heard anything on children's recreation areas, is this concept similar to the Exhilarama only on a smaller scale? 'tom' Mr. Tangora: I am not familiar with Exhilarama. Mrs. Fandrei: Maybe Mr. Parz can answer that for us. Ron Parz: No it is not. Mrs. Fandrei: It is strictly an arcade? Mr. Engebretson: It is a Major Magic type of idea. Mr. Parz: It is not a Major Magic. The main theme of this is a 30,000 cubic foot play area which, when a child enters into it with supervision of adults, will take about 45 minutes to go through. It is a series of climbing, sliding, etc. That is its major emphasis. I think you will find one on Ford Road in Westland right now. Mrs. Fandrei: Is there any alcohol served? Mr. Parz: None at all. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, if we were to rezone this to C-2 would alcohol be an acceptable use in the C-2 zoning? Mr. Nagy: It is a prohibited use except upon petition pursuant to the waiver use section of the Zoning Ordinance. It does not automatically 'taw become a permitted use. Mr. Alanskas: Is this the building that used to be called Sam's Jams only? Mr. Parz: This is a 13,000 square foot facility that goes from Sam's Jams all the way to north of H & R Block to the end of the unit. Mr. Alanskas: What would the hours of the operation be? Mr. Parz: The hours of the operation would be from 10:00 a. m. until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the weekdays. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any plans for a pool room in that part? Mr. Parz: No. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the games that dispense tokens that were referred to in the Zoning Board resolution, I was under the impression it may have some connection with the Major Magic type of concept because that is what they do, but apparently either the Zoning Board resolution doesn't address the business that they are doing or we are not really understanding what the business is. Are there tokens dispensed for achieving some level of accomplishment? Mr. Tangora: Again, I can't answer that because I have not seen the concept in operation. Mr. Parz will have to answer that. 13141 Mr. Engebretson: Are there games and things like that involved? Mr. Parz: We had gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals and we had brought in what games we were going to have there. One is going to be skeet ball and another one is going to be Hit The Hippo On The 'fam, Head. This is a rubber mallet that when the hippo comes up you are to hit the hippo on the head with the right hand and then hit the hippo on the head with the left hand. This is for eye/hand coordination. This is all for children five years and under. The next one is called the Bumble Bee. It has three colors and the bumble bee turns a certain color and the child has to take two colors and see what matches the color. Another game is Ally Alligator where you are to throw a ring around the alligator's neck and that is how you win. As an adult you are not allowed to enter the premises. In order for you to enter the premise you must have a child with you. In order for you to keep your children there, you must be with the child at all times. You will have an identification bracelet that matches up with the number of children you have. You must stay and the average stay per child is approximately one hour and a half. There is a $5.00 fee per child and they are allowed access to the entire facility. This is not a baby care center but it is an advocate for the 90's which allows single parents to take their children there for a couple of hours and have them under a controlled situation. The toys that are there are protected by UHL labels. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-1-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #11-215-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-1-14 by Plymouth Road Development Co. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-1-14 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the subject shopping center to continue operation. 2) That this area of the City is currently well served with uses which are permitted by the proposed zoning classification. 3) That the petitioner has failed to present evidence of the need for a change of zoning from a more restrictive zoning classification to a less restrictive classification. 4) That a change of zoning for the purpose of removing the non-conforming status of certain existing uses which are currently located in the subject shopping center does not transcend the need to provide for a variety of zoning classifications to maintain the viability of the Plymouth Road corridor as a commercial area. 13142 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: I want to briefly comment myself why I will support the denying resolution. I have no particular interest in either promoting the property owners to do something that is going to assist them in the future to market their space as it becomes available but neither do I want to do anything that inhibits him from being a continued successful entrepreneur in our City. I think the Zoning Board of Appeals process has worked on two separate occasions which has given the property owner the relief he needs. My principal concern is if we proceed to change the C-1 to C-2 simply to reduce the amount of Zoning Board activity, then it would probably be appropriate to go throughout the City and change all C-1 zoning districts to C-2 to put them on a level playing field. Again, I think the issue here goes beyond just the request itself and I think it is important that we let the system work the way it has and to not separate certain individuals for favorite treatment whereas the others that didn't have the C-2 zoning district would still have to go through the process to compete for the very same tenants. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-1-16 by Ansara Brothers and Peter Fleming requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from OS to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Also in our file is a letter from John D. Dinan of Johnstowne Offices who states they are the owners of the Johnstowne Offices located at 16801 Newburgh Road, immediately adjacent to subject property to be rezoned. He states they have no objection to the proposed use as a restaurant as they believe it will provide needed services for the general area and Mr. Ansara has an excellent reputation as a restaurateur in providing fine food and good service. They further believe that this will be an improvement over the existing vacant building. They close by saying they trust that this meets with your approval. We also have a letter from First Federal of Michigan dated November 23, 1993 stasting they wish to express their support of the proposed Red Robin Restaurant on the existing 13143 Comerica Bank site at the intersection of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads. They state a new Red Robin Restaurant at that site would be a nice addition to the area. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and state your reasons N"' for this request. Victor Ansara, 33971 Bretton: I am representing our business, Ansara Brothers. As you know, we have been in the City for almost 25 years. We have three separate restaurant operations currently in the City. What we are proposing for this site at the corner of Six Mile and Newburgh is another restaurant. A little different concept than we currently operate in the City. We are hoping to be able to do the same type of thing we have done in Novi, Michigan opening last May and that is a Red Robin Restaurant. We would ask for your consideration to allow us to do that. Mr. Tent: Mr. Ansara, I have a couple of questions. Your Big Boy Restaurant at Seven Mile and Middlebelt was before us to expand. Nothing has been done. The parking lot is a mess. What has happened there? Mr. Ansara: What has happened at that site is we had gone through and had torn the building down and in regards to the property next to that, I think that has been taken care of at this point. I understand there were some weeds that had grown in the part of the property where the building was torn down. Mr. Tent: What is the delay? Mr. Ansara: After bidding out the plans, etc. we have had some problems as far as costs, etc. as it was originally approved. We are currently having the architects and planners work on trying to do something that will be a little less costly for us and make a little more business sense. Obviously the City wouldn't want any business person in the City to do something that wouldn't make business sense. What we are trying to do in a site that we have been at for 25 years is do something that will improve the site significantly and still make business sense for us. Mr. Tent: How many did you say you have in Livonia now? Mr. Ansara: Three Big Boys. Mr. Tent: You have really one that is successful and that is the one at Six Mile and Newburgh. Mr. Ansara: We have been at the other ones in excess of three years. I don't think we would be there if they weren't successful. Mr. Tent: I am talking about the appearance. What I am concerned about is the piece of property you want to take over. We have a bank on the right hand side that is an ugly red bank and now we are going to balance the corner by putting a red building on the opposite corner. Is that correct? 13144 Mr. Ansara: Not necessarily. We can make it any color. Ail we need is some red trim on the exterior. As a matter of fact a number of the Red Robin buildings in the country are dryvit made with a cream color or a white color. It doesn't have to be a red brick building. That happens to be what we have in Novi because that is what the City of Novi required us to have. All our building requires and all our franchisor requires of us is we have some red accents on the exterior of the building. Mr. Tent: Do you have an option to buy the property? Mr. Ansara: Yes we do. It is a purchase agreement with contingencies. Mr. Tent: If you were successful in getting the zoning, what would the timing be? Mr. Ansara: Our intent would be to move as quickly as possible. Mr. Tent: You told us that on the other building. Mr. Ansara: Well with the other building unfortunately there were a lot of problems that arose through the development, through the City approval process that ended up costing us quite a bit more money. It wasn't our intention to delay anything. We even went through a lot of expense trying to get that approved. We purchased a piece of property, etc. Our intent was and still is to improve that restaurant. Mr. Tent: There are over 17 restaurants in that immediate area and they are all located in that cluster. How do you feel about that? `fir. Mr. Ansara: Well actually we have one of them and we are very successful in that restaurant. I think the other restaurants in that area that are similar to the concept of what we would hopefully be able to put on that property are all doing very, very well in that area. Mr. Tent: Well we had some that changed hands. The Ground Round came in with a different concept. What I am concerned about is oversaturating an area with restaurants. Mr. Ansara: We wouldn't propose to put a restaurant in that spot if we didn't think it would be very successful. Believe me, I think with Laurel Park Place across the street, with Newburgh Plaza across the street and with the other office and commercial development in that area, there is a lot of business to go around and I think another restaurant at that corner would do very well and I don't think it would harm any of the other restaurants in the area. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Ansara, getting back to the petition of going from OS to C-2, with a restaurant on that corner that you want to put there, there is a traffic pattern. How many seats are you planning to put in this restaurant? 13145 Mr. Ansara: There would be approximately 220 seats but I don't think you would ever have 220 people at one time. When you have four-seat booths often times you have two people or one person sitting in those four-seat booths so although your maximum seating is 220, you will probably not have more than 140 to 150. r.. Mr. Alanskas: As Mr. Tent alluded to earlier, we have at the present time 232 restaurants in our City and in that area there are 17 restaurants very, very close. There is a point where you can oversaturate it. You have the Ground Round. You have yours. You have the mall there. You keep adding restaurants and you will have more traffic patterns, safety factors, etc. My own particular view is that should stay OS. I think a restaurant doesn't belong on that corner. I think it should stay OS. Mr. Ansara: In regards to traffic, although we haven't had a formal traffic study done, we have had some research done in that regards and what we have learned is with all of the other activity in that area one additional restaurant wouldn't have that much affect. The affect on the traffic would be negligible. Mr. Alanskas: The traffic from the mall itself and then with the restaurant there, if it was a nice restaurant, it could be drawing a lot of people and that is a big concern. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Wanda Ferguson, 37611 Mallory: This is in the subdivision just adjoining this section of property and surprisingly enough the gentleman already Nur spoke to the problems that we have with this restaurant going in. First and foremost, is the traffic. If you have been anywhere in this area, especially from 7:00 in the morning until 9:30 or from 3:00 in the afternoon until 8:00 at night, it is absolutely impossible to get out from Mallory onto Newburgh. The same pattern exists even if you go all the way around the subdivision and go out on Six Mile Road. The traffic is, in my point of view, hazardous. This is something the restaurant is going to contribute to even a more strong pattern of danger to the drivers in the area. We feel there are a lot of restaurants and we just don't really see the need for another restaurant on this particular corner. Mr. Engebretson: Before I close the public hearing Mr. Ansara I would like to ask you, as I look at this map and the proximity of the homes to the proposed restaurant site, I was wondering what kind of odors would emanate from this facility? Mr. Ansara: Almost nothing. The reason I say that is because of the sophistication of ventilation used in restaurants these days. If you stand around older restaurants you would normally smell something, but if you go to the newer constructed restaurants now you would hardly smell anything. Mr. LaPine: Here again we are talking about zoning but I understand you want to have a Class C liquor license there. Would that mean you would be �,�, open until 2:00 in the morning? 13146 Mr. Ansara: Currently we are open until 10:00 on Sundays, 11:00 from Monday through Thursday and the latest we are open, which is on Friday and Saturday is midnight. Mrs. Fandrei: For the reasons that have already been expressed I agree with my fellow Commissioners and I would like to make a denying resolution. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #11-216-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-1-16 by Ansara Brothers and Peter Fleming requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from OS to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-1-16 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for office land use. 2) That this area of the City is currently well served with uses which are permitted by the C-2 zoning district. 3) That the additional vehicular traffic which can be expected as a result of C-2 zoning will overburden the site and the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That the existing OS zoning on the subject site will provide for uses which are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 5) That the existing OS zoning district helps to serve as a buffer or transitional zone between the two abutting major thoroughfares and the residential subdivision located to the southwest of the site. 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. Tent: From a planning standpoint I think this would be contrary to what we are trying to accomplish here in the City. I oppose a zoning change to accommodate another restaurant in an area that was and is designated for office use. I would not like to see the bank building demolished when they have another candidate to utilize the property as is. I would like to see that used for the purpose it is used now. There is a credit union in town that is looking for a site and that would probably be ideal for them if we could get them in that location. I can't see tearing down a perfectly good building that is already designed for that use and put a restaurant in. For that reason I can't support this petition. 13147 Mr. Engebretson: I will anticipate what you were going to say. I understand from a discussion with the Mayor this afternoon, I discussed this late this afternoon with him John, and I understand that this property has a deed restriction that would prevent occupancy by either this �r.• credit union that is looking for a home or any other financial institution. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Therefore the Mayor was leaning toward favoring this proposal because the building currently is such that it will not support any other kind of operation other than a bank or related type of business so the building has to come down to build an office building or a restaurant. Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment to that. I am speaking as a Planning Commissioner. So they have deed restrictions. What is our hurry to go ahead and utilize that corner if it can't be used for what we would like to see it used for. My opposition to it is our Master Plan has office services and that is what I would like to see. Regardless of what they may have, the owners of the property want to change that particular zoning to something else. Let them sell it to another bank. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-2-25 by RDS Detroit, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDD license (packaged liquor) for a Perry Drug Store located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The proposed location is within 400 feet of St. Edith Church and School. Ordinance 543 Sec. 11.03(r)2 requires a minimum 400 foot separation. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here. Charles Tangora: I represent Perry Drugs. I think you all understand that this is not a new SDD license. It is a transfer of a license that was in the shopping center that was on the northeast corner of Five Mile and Newburgh. Perry Drugs has entered into an agreement to buy that SDD license which has been held in escrow by the former operator of that drugstore. Essentially that is it. There is an 13148 ordinance there that prohibits it. I might point out that it can be approved with a waiver and the ordinance is more restrictive than the rules and regulations of the LCC. The LCC regulations would permit the establishment of the SDD license at this location. '1•11. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Mark Canvasser: I handle the management of that shopping center at Newburgh and Five Mile Road. It was recently bought by a new partnership in April out of a bankruptcy and I am sure you all may be familiar with the shopping center. It has not been marketed well in the last several years. There are actually two shopping centers there. There is one to the south and that is completely occupied, and the one where Perrys is located. The new owners and the new group that is involved, including our management company, is dedicated to enhancing this shopping center. Perrys has been a great tenant. It is not in conflict with any other tenant in the shopping center and it is continuing to grow. Farmer Jacks just renovated their store and I think it would be a good addition to the area. You were talking about a credit union that was looking for space. I don't know who that credit union is but who could I talk to. Mr. Engebretson: Call the staff and they will be glad to put you in touch with them. Mr. Morrow: St. Edith, were they notified of this? Mr. Nagy: Yes they were. '441m. Mr. Morrow: There was no feedback from them? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Morrow: There doesn't seem to be anyone in the audience from St. Ediths. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tangora, do you know how many Perrys there are in the area that do not sell liquor? Mr. Tangora: I do not have any idea. Unfortunately a Perry representative was supposed to be here tonight and he called me late this afternoon to tell me he had a very serious sickness in the family. I can't answer that question. Mr. Alanskas: You are only 200 feet from the church. Mr. Engebretson: There is also a wall. Mr. Tangora: I think Perry likes to have an SDD license wherever they can. Obviously it enhances their business. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Alanskas I would also suggest if the church were concerned they surely would have had a representative here because they were extremely vocal on other issues in that particular area. 13149 Mr. Tent: This is a question for the staff. This particular license will be within 200 feet of the church. Do we have any other such conditions in the City? Can we go ahead and act on this even if it doesn't meet the ordinance? Naar Mr. Nagy: Only if it would be subject to the appropriate variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It does not meet all the standards that were pointed out by the reports we received. Mr. Tent: Should this have gone to the ZBA first? Mr. Nagy: The Planning Commission and City Council deal with the use question first and then the Zoning Board will deal with the standards relating to the specific use. Mr. Tent: If I understand correctly even the Council cannot act on this until the ZBA gives its approval. Mr. Nagy: Council can act on it but they too, like the Planning Commission, will have to make it subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board. They cannot waive that requirement. Mr. Tent: I too am surprised that no one from the church is here. Mrs. Fandrei: The staff provided me with an aerial view and a more specific distance between Perrys and the church is 170 feet so it is even closer. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-2-25 by RDS Detroit, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDD license (packaged liquor) for a Perry Drug Store located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-2-25 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 10.03(g)(2) which provides that a proposed SDD licensed establishment shall be located at least four hundred (400) feet distant from any church or school building, either public or parochial, as measured from the nearest point on the building proposed to be licensed to the existing church or school building. 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. 13150 Mrs. Fandrei: I believe there is a school attached to this church isn't there John? Mr. Nagy: Yes there is. '4011" Mrs. Fandrei: That is another reason why I would feel strongly against this petition because there is not only a church there, but there is also a church school. Mr. McCann: I think I would be in favor of this use only because we are taking a use that was across the street. We are not increasing the density of the licenses to sell in any way. In addition, I think the intent of the 400 feet rule is to keep the intermingling between crowds. You wouldn't want the kids from the school and church being influenced by what is going on with the liquor store. Having the bearing wall and the entrance being on the north side of the building as opposed to the south side of the building, the crowd is being separated by probably a couple of thousand foot margin. There is the walk around the building, the walk around the wall, before they would be intermingled, which is the main intent. Therefore, I don't think it would be a detriment to the school or the church and would recommend approval. Mr. Morrow: I was prepared to, because of the ordinance, support the church but they apparently don't seem to be very concerned about it because perhaps their thinking runs along the same line as Mr. McCann's that as the crow flies it is 180 feet but as you walk around the site it is appreciably more than that. Mr. Alanskas: I myself had forgotten about that wall and like they said the church is not here. I myself used to go to Concord Drugs across the street and they had no problem there. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine NAYS: Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #11-217-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-2-25 by RDS Detroit, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDD license (packaged liquor) for a Perry Drug Store located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-2-25 be approved subject to the waiving of the requirement for a four hundred (400) foot separation between the proposed SDD licensed establishment and a church or school by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons: 13151 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 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: Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-2-26 by Donald J. and Terri D. Mattarella requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. ``. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Also in our file is a letter from Robert N. Canvasser stating he is one of the owners of Buckingham Shopping Center and he and his associates wish to encourage the Planning Commission's approval of this petition. He further states the petitioners are experienced operators who presently own a Subway Sandwich shop. He states the space they intend to operate out of has been empty for over two years. They intend to totally refurbish it, paint it and operate a nice clean restaurant. He finishes by saying they feel this will be a good addition to the center for the invitees and for the neighborhood and they urge the Commission's approval and support of this petition. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down and tell us your reasons for making this request. 13152 Don Mattarella, 30979 Five Mile: My wife and I are owner/operators of Subway Sandwich. We currently own the one on Five Mile in Livonia Plaza. We would like to go into this spot. With all the industry and businesses around there we feel we could run a successful business. fir. Mr. LaPine: John, what is the difference between this proposal coming to us and not going to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Can you explain that to me? How does these things happen? I assume that he went to some department and they told him he had to go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Parz apparently goes to some department and they tell him to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. How come we are not treating people the same? Mr. Nagy: I don't know the answer. Mr. LaPine: I wish you would get me an answer. Mr. Nagy: I can only indicate that what Mr. Tangora indicated that in the previous case there was a matter of time element. Mr. LaPine: I would imagine that with this gentleman there is a time element too. You don't have two standards. Everybody should be treated the same way. Mr. Nagy: I agree with you Mr. LaPine and I wish they would all come through the waiver use route. Mr. Alanskas: You say you have another one at Five Mile and what? Mr. Mattarella: Five Mile Road and Merriman at Livonia Plaza. slaw Mr. Alanskas: One just went in at Five Mile and Newburgh and that young man is doing very well. I noticed that front window. Is that going to stay the way it is? Mr. Mattarella: Yes it will stay the way it is. It is going to be redone with all new wood but it will stay exactly the way it is. Mr. Alanskas: You are not going to also have things like chili and hot dogs? It is strictly going to be subways and salads? Mr. Mattarella: That is correct. Mr. Tent: The operation you have at Five Mile in Livonia Plaza, how long have you been there? Mr. Mattarella: The store has been there for four years. I have owned it for two years. Mr. Tent: You find it pretty successful? Mr. Mattarella: Yes. Mr. Tent: I am glad you are and I am glad you decided to stay in Livonia. This is a good location and we wish you lots of success if this is approved. Can you get by with 30 seats? 13153 Mr. Mattarella: Yes. Mr. Tent: Will this be a delivery service also? Mr. Mattarella: No just come in and take out or sit down. Mr. Tent: What will be your hours of operation? Mr. Mattarella: From 10:00 in the morning until midnight. Mr. Tent: Seven days a week? Mr. Mattarella: Yes. Mr. Tent: Is there any signage you will be considering at a later date? Mr. Mattarella: Just the sign on the front of the building. Mr. Tent: That is not part of this petition Mr. Nagy? That will have to be a call back? Mr. Engebretson: Unless it is a conforming sign. Mr. Tent: If it is a conforming sign you could go ahead. It is interesting what Mr. LaPine said because I agree with what he said. In this particular case this gentleman meets all of the requirements so there would be no need for him to go to the ZBA or anything of that type. I too agree with what Mr. LaPine said. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, I am just curious as to whether or not you spent any time determining whether or not that parking lot meets your requirements. I'll tell you why I ask the question. When I was there to examine this case, and as I have gone in and out of that shopping center for a variety of reasons, it seems to be always extremely busy and at times very difficult to find a parking place. I just wonder if you are concerned about that? Mr. Mattarella: A little concerned but I kind of like that it is that busy. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Michael Southers, 11118 Bradley Ct. , Plymouth: I am the local representative for the Subway Sandwiches for the Wayne County area. We are in total full support of this location. Again, as Don mentioned with the industrial corridor there and the retail and the shopping center as well as the residential, we think it is the ideal mix for a Subway Sandwich in the area. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, presumably you wouldn't be emitting any odors from your facility that would drift off into the residential area in the back. Is that a safe assumption? Mr. Mattarella: The only thing we bake is our bread. 13154 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ansara had indicated in the previous petition that they had equipment that was going to prevent those odors from escaping the building. I guess I would like some assurance from you on the same point. Mr. Southers: The only equipment we have in our restaurant is our oven. Our oven tir. has a cap hood on it as required by the Wayne County Health Department. It exhausts out the roof. By the time it gets up to the roof you can barely smell it. The aroma you are going to get is in the restaurant. Mr. Tent: The dumpster for picking up your garbage, where is that contained? Mr. Mattarella: It is in the rear of the building. As a matter of fact I was out there and it is out the back door of our location. Mr. Tent: Do you have a lot of garbage? Mr. Mattarella: Not very much, mostly boxes. One bag a day from what people throw away up front. Mr. Tent: It is not a problem at your Five Mile Road location? Mr. Mattarella: No. Mr. Tent: The reason I ask that is because to follow up on what Mr. Engebretson said there are neighbors right next door and we have had complaints before when they have restaurants about litter, etc. If you are sure that your dumpster is adequate to handle the garbage. `,.. Mr. Mattarella: From what I see out back they already have two dumpsters. Mr. LaPine: You are renting that whole building but you are only going to use the front portion of the building I understand. Is that correct? Mr. Mattarella: Correct. Mr. LaPine: What is going to happen to the rear portion? Mr. Mattarella: We will use it for some storage and partly our office. Mr. Morrow: I would assume you don't have much garbage. Do you have a disposal? Mr. Mattarella: No I don't. Mr. Morrow: So you will have some garbage. I wasn't sure if you had a disposal to get rid of some of the garbage. Mr. Mattarella: There is still not a whole lot. The only thing that would go into it is onions, green pepper ends, and everything else comes processed and we just put it together. 13155 Mr. Southers: Can I add to that. At the recent store that we opened up at Five Mile and Newburgh we did add in a garbage disposal. It isn't something that Subway requires or really wants. It was at the plumbing inspector's discretion and he asked us to do that and we did add it in there. Mr. LaPine: Will this one have it? Mr. Southers: If the inspector wants one, it will. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #11-218-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-2-26 by Donald J. and Terri D. Mattarella requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in an existing building located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-2-26 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats of no more than 30 seats 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 `f.. use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. and subject to the following condition: 1) That a garbage disposal shall be incorporated in this proposed facility. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #E543, as amended. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, passage of this would automatically be 20% window coverage, correct? Mr. Nagy: That is right. Mrs. Fandrei: Does the petitioner understand that they are limited to 20% signage in the window? Mr. Mattarella: That is no problem. We only have one sign in the window. All of our signs are either in a frame on the interior of the building and not on the glass. We typically have one, what we call a window slick with a vinyl transparent sign usually with a price point on it. It is typically about 36" x 36". That will be the only sign other than a neon "open" sign. 13156 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-3-4 by Craig and Lynne O'Neill requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 337 of Country Homes Estates Subdivision No. 2, north of Myrna Avenue between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement area, therefore their department has no objections to this vacating proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Apparently not. It is pretty clear cut. There is not much to say. Mr. Nagy: The O'Neills did submit a letter to Council requesting the vacating and I will be happy to read it. Mr. Engeretson: Since they are not here maybe you should read it. Mr. Nagy: "We are Craig and Lynne O'Neill of 37208 Sunnydale St. , Livonia. We are requesting that a 3'4" x 11'3 1/2" section of a north side easement located within our property line be vacated. Presently there is a cement slab located within this easement and there was an aluminum shed constructed on that slab. We have torn the rr. aluminum shed down and wish to construct a new 12' x 12' wooden shed on the existing slab. "We have applied for a permit to add a section of cement to the front of the slab (with appropriate rat walls), so that the new shed will not be constructed on the back or west easement, and to construct the 12' x 12' shed. We spoke with Mr. Jerry Kinney from the Engineering Dept. He checked the plot plan for our subdivision, Country Homes Estates No. 2, and the easement we are requesting the change on contains no utility lines. Mr. Kinney suggested we go to the Planning Department and request that only the section of the north side easement on which we want to construct the shed, be vacated. We were instructed by the Planning Dept. to write a letter to the City Council stating our request. "Therefore we are submitting this letter to you for your consideration and approval. We realize there are certain procedures and legalities involved, however, as usual, if we could have our request addressed as soon as possible or as soon as your schedule permits, we would be greatly appreciative. We had hoped we could have the shed constructed before the weather becomes a problem. "Thank you very much for your consideration and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Craig & Lynne O'Neill, 37208 Sunnydale, Livonia, MI" 13157 Mrs. Fandrei: John, that shed is still up today. If we were to give our approval could we condition that the shed be removed from the property? Mr. Nagy: I suppose you could. I really don't know the condition of the shed to say whether it should or shouldn't be removed. I am not in a 'to"' position to say tearing it down is justified because I don't know the condition and I don't want to cause any substantial loss to the petitioners without knowing the condition of the shed. Mrs. Fandrei: It was indicated that they were going to build a 12'x12' wood shed on a concrete floor and the one that is existing right now is a pink and white metal which doesn't look real great. So we could condition it being they presented that they were going to build a new shed. Mr. Nagy: My problem is I don't know since this is a vacating ordinance. It is like a zoning ordinance and to that extent I don't know if you can condition with respect to an ordinance. If it was a site plan or a waiver I would have no problem but I think in this case we are dealing with an ordinance of the City. I don't know if we can, in fact, enter into a contractual agreement with regard to an ordinance of the City of Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: Mrs. Fandrei, wouldn't you assume that they are going to proceed with replacement of the old wood shed with the new one? Mrs. Fandrei: I wouldn't assume that. I have seen people do things like that, move sheds and garages. If their financial situation changed and they didn't want to purchase the wood for the wooden shed, they could just put a cement slab under and move it back on. It is a `'`' City requirement to have a slab under a shed so they could remove the shed, put the slab and put it back. Mr. Engebretson: There is a slab there now. They want to expand the slab so what exists apparently has a slab under it. They are looking to build a larger shed on an expanded slab. I guess I am thinking if there was some kind of condition that as it goes through the process that they have to remove the existing shed, whatever is in that shed doesn't have a home while all this occurs. I think we would be putting some hardship on them. Whatever is in the shed, if they have to tear the shed down to get the vacating approved, is going to be in the open space if they wait until the springtime when they can likely build a shed. I am not sure why we are trying to force the issue regarding tearing it down. That is the whole purpose tearing it down and building a new one. Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is that they have asked us to vacate a portion of an easement which the City indicates they have no use for and as one Commissioner I have no problem, if the City doesn't need it and they can use it, giving it up. Mr. Tent: It indicates that the building has been removed and that is where I am confused. I am reading my notes and it says the slab previously supported an aluminum shed which your petitioners removed. It says here removed so I assume from that it is gone. 13158 Mrs. Fandrei: It is not gone. Mr. Nagy: The letter I read into the record said they removed it. That is why we put it in your notes. We relied on their letter. Mr. McCann: It may have been their intent. Mr. Morrow: I think they indicated also in their letter they wanted to make it happen before the weather set in. Maybe they reconsidered. They may not build until spring now so they can use the old shed. At least it gives them an option. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-219-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-3-4 by Craig and Lynne O'Neill requesting to vacate a portion of an easement on Lot 337 of Country Homes Estates Subdivision No. 2, north of Myrna Avenue between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-3-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject portion of the existing easement is not needed to protect any public utilities. 2) That the subject portion of the existing easement can be utilized `'or more advantageously by the property owner. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-6-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #727-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XXI of the Zoning Ordinance so as to reduce the membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals from seven members to six members plus an additional alternate member, with all seven members serving on a rotating basis. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you want to explain this one? Mr. Nagy: I would rather have a member of the Zoning Board explain it. Mr. Engebretson: I was under the impression that was exactly what was to happen. Mr. Nagy: We were going to table it and invite them to a study meeting which would be more informal. 13159 Mr. Engebretson: So the public hearing would be conducted in a study meeting. Mr. Nagy: We could re-advertise if it would make you feel better. soft. proposal.Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, just as a comment that at our prehearing review some of our Commissioners had a pretty lively discussion as to the proposed ordinance that was presented and we thought it would be advisable to table it so we would have an opportunity to meet with a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals so we could discuss it and come back to a public hearing or at least to take it off the table and act on it after we have had an opportunity to learn a little more about the thinking behind the proposed ordinance. Mr. Engebretson: I was absent last week but it is my crystal clear recollection that from the moment this issue first surfaced many months ago we made the determination that the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be present at the public hearing and that we would get a better understanding of why they were seeking to make this significant change and so now I guess we can close the public hearing. The body of evidence consists of zero words. I just wonder why we are doing business this way but so be it. I am looking for a motion. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-6-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded until Mr. Tent and unanimously Nom. approved, it was #11-220-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 93-10-6-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #727-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XXI of the Zoning Ordinance so as to reduce the membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals from seven members to six members plus an additional alternate member, with all seven members serving on a rotating basis, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 93-10-6-6 until the study meeting of December 14, 1993 or until the availability of the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision proposed to be located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 13160 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Parks & Recreation Department stating they find no discrepancies or problems that will be caused by the development of this property. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no ft.y objection to this development. Lastly, we have received a letter from the City Engineer stating it is the recommendation of the Engineering Department that the proposed Sunset Subdivision take into account the adjacent vacant lot to the west. It seems only appropriate that the pavement be centered to accommodate parcels on either side as shown on the attached penciled sketch. He closes by saying he hopes that the City would get involved so that the final product is something of which we can all be proud. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? The petitioner was not present. Mr. Nagy: I can only guess, I can't tell you why he is not here but based upon the letter from the City Engineer we have advised the petitioner of his report that he found exceptions to his layout and would like to see it coordinated with the land to the west and we volunteered to try to contact that property owner, which we have, to try to work out arrangements. Mr. Engebretson: You tried to contact him or tried to work out arrangements? Mr. Nagy: Both, and we contacted him and we found a willingness to sell ten feet of property subject to certain other agreements and we haven't finalized those. I would suspect that has something to do with it. I can't say for sure obviously. Niter Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: Could you tell me when the subdivision was brought before the Planning Commission again? We have not heard anything. Mr. Engebretson: This is the first public hearing activity Mrs. Sullivan on this proposal. Mrs. Sullivan: We haven't heard anything on it from when he withdrew his petition from wanting to rezone it. I would like to know why the residents on Sunset had not gotten notification of this meeting. Only the abutting property owners did. Mr. Engebretson: I suspect it is because that is all the ordinance requires for notification on this kind of matter. Is that correct Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: If it were a zoning matter then it would reach out further, as you know. Mrs. Sullivan: I am also concerned about the fire engine turnaround. I heard you say they need 120 feet. 13161 Mr. Engebretson: One hundred ten feet. This is a 55 foot radius which would translate to the 110 feet of diameter. Is that right Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: The City prefers 120 feet. One hundred ten feet is acceptable but the more appropriate standard is the full 120. '411"' Mrs. Sullivan: I am concerned about that, about the fire engine being able to turn around. Would that be safe for the people living in those homes? Mr. McCann: The Fire Marshal did approve the 55 foot saying it would be no problem for his vehicles. He specifically noted that. Mrs. Sullivan: Who is the builder of the subdivision? Is Dettore still in on it? Mr. Engebretson: John, can you tell us who the builder is who is asking for this plat approval? Mrs. Sullivan: We would have welcomed years ago if Mr. Dettore would have put homes back there but he didn't want to put homes there. All he wanted was the industrial. He did not care about homes. Mr. Nagy: The applicant who paid the filing fee is Schrader-Porter & Associates who give their address as 27475 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan. They are the applicant who filed the petition. Mrs. Sullivan: Are all the lots R-3? Mr. Engebretson: Yes they are. Mrs. Sullivan: We are deeply concerned about the fire engines and also if it does pass, the residents and members of the North Central Livonia Civic �► Association are requesting that the builder or corporation that is building the Sunset Subdivision has to place a bond to the City in sufficient amount to replace any roads damaged due to the construction of Sunset Subdivision to the satisfaction of the residents and the City. There is a good example of Fargo Street that has just recently been paved and not being repaired properly due to the utilities having been run under the road. There is a bump right there. As long as you are sure that a fire engine can turn around there. Mr. Engebretson: The Fire Marshal says it could. We have to trust him if he says it will. We are not going to ask him to be any more reassuring than he has. There is no question about that. That is a done issue. John, what about the bonds. When the plat process goes through I know there are bonds that are filed. Exactly what is covered by that? Does that include these peripheral areas or is it to do with the completion of the development of the plat itself? Mr. Nagy: What we are dealing with tonight is the layout of the subdivision, the road layout in terms of how it serves the lots, the cul-de-sac, if it coordinates with the other street patterns of the area and lot sizes, etc. Once the layout is approved then you have the improvement plans themselves that will set forth all the 13162 requirements, the sanitary sewers, the water lines, the street pavement, subdivision markers, etc. and then the City requires that appropriate bonds be placed upon the property to assure that all the needed improvements that are planned as part of the subdivision are in fact put in place. There are usually bank letters of credit, surety bonds, performance bonds and a portion of it is cash `" bonds, and part of that analysis is how will they bring those utilities into the site. Those roads too must be bonded to protect and restore that pavement, if that in fact is the way the service vehicles are going to access that area to improve the subdivision. Mr. Engebretson: So Mrs. Sullivan's concerns will be addressed by various departments as it works its way through the process, assuming it is approved. Mr. Nagy: Mr. Dettore may, because he has an interest in the property to the north, may decide to come from Eight Mile into the property to lessen the likelihood of damage to the roads that he would otherwise have to restore. I don't know but there are options to bring the heavy equipment into the subdivision other than Sunset that he has an interest in to the north from Eight Mile. Mr. Tent: Mrs. Sullivan and her partner have sat through this whole meeting for quite a while, why wasn't the developer here? I feel he should have been here because Mrs. Sullivan has been involved with this City for a long time and the questions and concerns she has are valid and I know she would like to have asked some questions since this is a public hearing. I am disappointed the developer wasn't here. Under those circumstances I, as one Commissioner, would not like to act on it at this particular time. I would like to refer this back to a study meeting and take action at a later time and `ft. let this petitioner know when they have a hearing before us they should be here. There are questions I wanted to ask him too. I wanted to know about this land dedication. If we can get an extra couple of feet. I don't want him to say in a letter I tried it and that was it. I would like to look him in the eye and say what are you going to do about it. They have been here for a long time. I recognize this is a preliminary plat and there is going to be a final plat but there are questions to be answered. At this point I would be willing to table this until the 14th and let this developer come in and invite these people from the civic association to go ahead and be absolutely assured to know what they are getting. Mrs. Sullivan: I think the residents on Sunset should be notified too about the meeting. Mr. Engebretson: There is no way we can do this to everybody's satisfaction. The only way we can really do it is according to the ordinance, which we have done. We assume, Mrs. Sullivan, you will let some of those people know through your civic association. We have really done what we can and should do there, but the fact of the matter is that it is highly unlikely that this matter will be disposed of tonight so you will be aware of what is going to happen and you can put the word out. 13163 Mrs. Sullivan: I would like to address the Planning Commission that they can thank the North Central Livonia Civic Association for the way Eight Mile Road looks. Eight Mile Road would not look the way it does if it hadn't been for the civic association. We would have had construction companies and all this other stuff along Eight Mile Road if it hadn't been for the North Central Livonia Civic Association all these years coming to City Hall and fighting for our area. It has been over 30 years. We are the oldest civic association in the City and that is something to say. Mr. LaPine knows how many years we have been fighting for the area and Mr. Tent. You can admit to yourself that Eight Mile Road would not look as nice as it does if it wasn't for the civic association and they can thank our area for the fight we have put up. Mr. LaPine: Mrs. Sullivan, you and your friend, fought long and hard and I think you should be commended for your efforts. Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Dettore, we would have been glad to work with him back in 1967 for homes instead of spending so many nights at City Hall. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mrs. Sullivan. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat for Sunset Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision proposed to be located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Sunset Subdivision be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable Ordinances and Regulations. 2) That the proposed subdivision layout represents a logical land use solution to a very narrow parcel of property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion died for lack of support. On a motion duly made Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #11-221-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 30, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision proposed to 13164 be located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn. Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision until the study meeting of December 14, 1993. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 674th Regular Meeting held on November 16, 1993. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #11-222-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 674th Regular Meeting held on November 16, 1993 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYRS: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: None `r. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Vasilios Valkanos for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property at 29110 Five Mile Road in Section 13. Mr. Miller: This is the shopping center that is located on the north side of Five Mile Road just east of Middlebelt Road. The petitioner is proposing to install a 7 1/2 foot in diameter satellite dish approximately 18 feet north or behind their unit in the shopping center. It will be located along the edge of the parking lot 40 feet from the front of the shopping center. It will be located on an 18 foot high pole and with the satellite dish and pole combined, it will be approximately 23 feet high. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Tina Valkanos, 24165 Cranbrooke, Novi: We are requesting permission to install a satellite dish. Mr. Morrow: At the prehearing review we discussed some type of landscaping with the staff. Was that accomplished? 13165 Mrs. Valkanos: Yes Scott and I talked about it. Mr. Morrow: What was it you came up with? Mrs. Valkanos: To put in three or four trees to help camouflage. "441.' Mr. Morrow: To screen it from the neighbors to the rear? Mrs. Valkanos: Yes. Mr. Morrow: As far as the satellite dish, if you ever give up the use of the building is it your intent to take the satellite dish with you? Mrs. Valkanos: Yes. Mr. Morrow: We could make that a condition of approval? Mrs. Valkanos: Yes it would be ours. Mr. Tent: What are you going to do there? Mrs. Valkanos: It will be a social club. A social club meaning a gathering place. People will get together for a few drinks, food and mostly to watch the TV. We are Greek and that is the main reason for installing the satellite dish to get Greek television. Mr. Tent: How many members do you have in the club? Mrs. Valkanos: Between 25 and 30. Mr. Tent: Is there a membership fee? Sow Mrs. Valkanos: The fee is $75.00 per month. Mr. Tent: That is just a gathering of friends at this particular location? Mrs. Valkanos: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, how many feet will that pole be in the ground? Mr. Miller: It will be four feet in the ground with cement. Mr. Alanskas: How far will the cement be around the pole? Installer: It will be 24 feet by 24 feet. Mr. Alanskas: Where that tree is, when you go 23 feet, you have these big branches. Are you going to trim those trees? Installer: I did the site survey to see what angles are right for the dish. That location will work but it is not ideal to pick up the whole art of the satellite. Scott was telling you it was going to be 18 feet to the north, right on the rear building line. After doing the site survey these trees would interfere with their picking up a few satellites. There are high trees all along this area. What I 13166 propose to do is move the pole and the dish over to this area about 12 feet in from here (he pointed this out on the plan) so I could get this angle and that would be in the ground four feet and mounted to the building. Mr. Alanskas: That is the parking area. `'rr. Installer: No that is not a parking area. Mr. Alanskas: How close to the building would it be? Installer: Right against the building. Mr. Alanskas: Where you want to have it now there are all those trees hiding it whereas if you put it next to the building, it will really be exposed. Installer: There are trees, I believe, that come back this way which would still hide it because it would be in this general area. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, would he have to do a new plan? Mr. Nagy: We would need a new plan. We can make it subject to a revised plan if you want to approve it tonight or table it and have them submit a new plan. We need a plan to document what we approved so the Inspection Department has something. Installer: I am just going to move the pole closer to the building and there is a big tree right here, and just over about ten feet. Mrs. Fandrei: You say ten feet further west and south closer to the building? y`, Installer: Eighteen feet to the rear and ten feet to the west. Mrs. Fandrei: It will go over the top of the building to receive the satellite? Installer: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: What is the zoning district, C-2? Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. Mr. Engebretson: Would their occupancy be based on the use of a club/lodge kind of fraternal and religious organizations? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: We are changing the proposal here, which puts us in somewhat of a dilemma because most of us, if not all of us, have been out there to try to get a sense for what aesthetic impact this would have on the neighborhood and the location as originally proposed would have led me to believe that if you could have installed it there without tearing those trees apart too badly, it was going to be shielded quite well, at least from that side. Now the proposal to move the location of the dish, I understand why you want to do that and in 13167 some respect that is even better with regard to the one direction but I am not so sure what impact it has toward the north. I guess I would feel obligated to go back and look at that from this point of view. I am not comfortable deciding the case based on speculation that we might do in our own minds as to what impact it would have. We went there and studied it as it was proposed. I don't have any objection with the change they are making in principle but I do feel a need personally to go back there and have a new plan precisely locating the installation and then be able to go back and take it all in from that point of view. Installer: The proposal for a new plan is so she can pick up the entire art. Mr. Engebretson: I understand that. We are not arguing that. Installer: She would be minus about three satellites if it were put in where it is proposed now. Mrs. Valkanos: I wouldn't mind not picking up the three satellites. Installer: Her main reason is to pick up the Greek satellite. Mr. Engebretson: I understand but I have another problem, having heard that there is a consideration to move it to another part of the building, I can see the tops of those trees coming down when they change their minds because they want to get to those other satellites that you access by putting it on the side of the building. Mrs. Valkanos: We wouldn't move the satellite dish once it has been placed. Mr. Engebretson: I am saying there is a possibility you would move the tops of those trees. I am not saying you would. I recommend we proceed with reviewing this from the other prospective. I think it is a better location. It serves your purposes. I gives you the additional satellite. I just want to make sure of the impact it has on the neighbors to the north. Those to the east, I think, are well served. Mr. LaPine: I want to get on the record that there is no selling of alcohol. All alcohol is brought in by the members and it is consumed on the premises? Mrs. Valkanos: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: There is no gambling of any type? Mrs. Valkanos: No. Mr. LaPine: You told us there were approximately 25 to 30 members. Do you have a maximum number? Mrs. Valkanos: No more than 30. You can't put any more than 30 in there. Mr. LaPine: That is what I wanted to find out. So the maximum number of the membership you would have would be 30. I guess the other question I have is how many of your members are Livonia residents or are they from all over the metropolitan Detroit area? 13168 Mrs. Valkanos: All over. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of operation? Mrs. Valkanos: 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. On the weekends it might be a little longer. Mr. LaPine: Will there be people there every night of the week or is this a weekend operation? Mrs. Valkanos: A weekend operation. Sometimes during the week. It depends on when people want to get together. Mr. LaPine: Each member would have a key and they could come as they want? Mr. Valkanos: Each member wouldn't have a key. The President or Vice President would have a key. Everybody couldn't have a key. Mr. LaPine: So the members couldn't congregate unless they contacted the President? Mrs. Valkanos: It would be something set up. Mr. LaPine: The latest you would be there is two to three o'clock in the morning? Mrs. Valkanos: On a Saturday maybe. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree, quite frankly when I was out there with the Chairman I thought it was a bad location for the satellite dish because of all those trees. I told the Chairman it looked to me `'rr like they are not going to get a very good reception. I think your proposal to move it makes more sense. Mrs. Fandrei: If he is going to move this and redraw it then I think I would like to see the trees placed on the drawing, where they are going to be planted. I would like to know where they are in relation to where the satellite dish is going to end up. Mr. LaPine: I would like to say in relation to that, if the satellite dish is going to be moved, I don't know if you need the trees. How is that going to hide the satellite dish? Mrs. Fandrei: The purpose of the shielding was not for the close up of the satellite, but the distance from the apartments through those evergreens as they grow. That was my understanding. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #11-223-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Permit Application by Vasilios Valkanos for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property at 29110 Five Mile Road until the study meeting of December 14, 1993. 13169 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 675th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on November 30, 1993 was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Nor CITY PLANNING COMMISSION t QJames C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: '( Jack Engebre son, Chairman ig r.�