Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-01-11 13170 MINUTES OF THE 676th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA ``. On Tuesday, January 11, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 676th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 65 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Members absent: Jack Engebretson Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Morrow 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 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 Petition 93-10-1 -15 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #688-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers and Angling in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from OS, P, and RUF to RC. 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. Tent: To the staff, who owns this property? Mr. Nagy: It is owned in private. The property is owned by Mr. Corsi. The owner of the Corsi Restaurant also owns this property. Mr. Morrow: This petition is by the City Planning Commission so we will go directly to the audience to see if there is anyone present wishing to speak on this item. 13171 Brad Berger, 19331 Lathers: I would like to know whether this has been brought in front of the DNR. Has the DNR already approved this? Mr. Morrow: It would be my supposition, because it is a matter of zoning with no development at this time, that any DNR or anything along that 14ft. line would be addressed at the time of development. It would also he my guess that they would not be able to encroach upon the lands in the flood plain. Mr. Berger: Because that definitely is directly in the flood plain. Mr. Morrow: I think the petitioner to the right has a little piece that is also in the flood plain and it was used as an open space. Mr. Berger: In the City of Livonia how many acres do you have to have per dwelling for condos? Mr. Morrow: I am going to have to defer that question to the professional staff. Mr. Nagy: It depends on the bedroom composition of the dwelling unit. There are different densities for one-bedroom, for two-bedroom or three-bedroom. The minimum for a one-bedroom condominium is 4,350 square feet and then more additional site area for each additional bedroom that the owner would have. Mr. Berger: My concern is they are going to build in that flood plain. Mr. Nagy: The flood plain is set aside and cannot be developed. While it is part of the zoning proposal, whether it would be parking or RUF, it is still flood plain and cannot be utilized. The only additional with the RC zoning classification, they can take density credit for developable portion of the property. They can use the flood plain area to the extent of 25%. Mr. Berger: So they could cram condos where it is now classified as office space and use part of that flood plain for that density. Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I think we can assure you tonight they will not be building on the flood plain. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the present developer of the property adjacent to this, he has petitioned us for condominiums. He indicated at one of our study meetings that he was interested in this particular parcel. Is there any action there on his part? Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of. I know, as you pointed out, that he expressed an interest in looking at this property if it were rezoned to RC and perhaps that was why he is waiting to see what happens. Mr. LaPine: John, the developer to the east that we approved for condominiums, to the best of your knowledge he is still going forward? 13172 Mr. Nagy: To the best of my knowledge yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #1-1-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1994 on Petition 93-10-1-15 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #688-93, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers and Angling in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from OS, P, and RUF to RC, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-10-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of residential facilities in the area to serve the community. 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension of an existing zoning district adjacent on the east. 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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-1-17 by Seven Mile and Haggerty Assoc. (proponent) and Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership (owner), requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road and east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from ML 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. We have also received a letter from J.R.F. Associates stating we are very concerned as to the negative impact a rezoning of the above captioned property will have on the property we own directly adjacent to the parcel being considered for rezoning. Some of our concerns include, but are not limited to, increased traffic, ingress and egress as it effects our property, and the rezoning as it may impact our tenants. It is our position that until such time as our questions are answered and our concerns alleviated that we oppose any rezoning of the subject property. This was signed by Robert J. Crutcher, General Partner. Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the petitioner: 13173 Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I represent the petitioner, Seven Mile and Haggerty Associates. This piece of property is approximately 33 acres as the staff has indicated. The petitioner would like to develop it in a commercial manner similar to the type of development you have on Haggerty Road north of this piece of property, namely the Target store and Source Club. They are not planning a strip mall or strip shopping center. The users will all be sizable users. It is a very desirable area. There are many users out there that would like to be in this area. Nobody has signed up obviously until the zoning takes place. This is just in the talking stages as far as leasing or selling that property. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, I am looking at this. I am very concerned with this section of the City also. It is the golden corridor of the City. We have had this on the Master Plan for a long time. We have made our desires known to a lot of developers. I recognize that times do change and we should look at things in an intelligent manner. Let me ask you a couple of questions. The petitioner before us now, does he have an option on this property? Mr. Tangora: Yes. Mr. Tent: What are the terms of the option? Mr. Tangora: The option was taken up back in early November. We filed the petition for rezoning right after the option was signed. Mr. Tent: Is there a clock running? Mr. Tangora: Very definitely. Mr. Tent: What is your bottom line? Mr. Tangora: The bottom line is that, I am not absolutely certain but I understand when we normally go into these type of deals we advise our clients it will take about four months for the rezoning process. I think they proceeded on that basis. Because of the holidays, mainly in December when the boards and Council don't meet as often as they normally do, we have been set back two months so the clock is running and we are anxious to make a determination before the option expires. Mr. Tent: It doesn't have to be a hasty decision on our part? That is what I want to know. In other words, do we all have time to work on this to put in a quality development or is this something that has to be done right now? Mr. Tangora: As the Planning Commission knows, whatever action you take, either approve or deny here tonight, we still have work to do at the Council level so we still have several months of work with the City to develop a quality development. 13174 Mr. Tent: We are a fact-finding Commission. We are trying to get everything together so when it does go to Council we have what I, as one Commissioner, would like to see in this area. It is not the idea of hurrying it through. That is why I question the time factor. I have another question. The present owner of the property, is he going to divest himself of the ownership? Mr. Tangora: That is what I understand. The Jonna Company will be out. Mr. Tent: Do you have firm commitments on what you are proposing? Mr. Tangora: Mr. Walkon can answer that. Marvin Walkon, Telegraph Road, Southfield: Mr. Tent to answer your first question as to the time required, we purchased this property under option from the Jonna Company and like Chuck said we lost about a month and a half. We do have very, very tight time constraints right now. As to the type of tenants we are talking to, we are talking to two large department stores. We are talking to two book stores. We are also talking to the type of store, and I would use it generically, like a Bed, Bath & Beyond type of store. These are the type of tenants we are talking with. We have agreed with them not to release the names of tenants right now for two reasons. One, if it is in the newspaper right now, they are going to be in trouble with their real estate department and I would be in serious trouble. We, of course, do not have a lease. We have extremely serious interest. As a matter of fact, they are calling us and the Ward Church, as you know, in Northville and right now what I would refer to as playing one against the other. To tell you a little bit about the type of center we are talking about, these are going to be only the large users. There are not going to be what I refer to as "Mom and Pop" stores so it will not be in a historical Livonia sense a "strip center". We are going to build, and I am making this as a commitment, an all brick, let me repeat that so there is no mistake later, all brick, heavily landscaped center, something we can all be proud of one year or one and a half years from now. Mr. Tent you know my style. It is not to give a promise of Arpege and not deliver on it. This is going to be a center that is aesthetically pleasing and the type of tenants that you are going to see here are the quality tenants that you see in Troy and West Bloomfield. This is not meant to be an Alfred Hitchcock mystery as to the type of tenant. When I say book stores, you probably don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure which are the new book stores coming into this area. We have been asked and we are going to keep the confidence of the tenants at this point. We are in the middle stages of the rezoning process and if there are any questions from people in the area or anyone else, Mr. Nagy has my phone number and I will be pleased to meet with them. I will be pleased to respond to any questions they have as long as it is not betraying the confidence of the tenant. We enjoy being part of the neighborhood. rr.. 13175 Mr. Tent: When I said I understood what is happening in the area, I do realize Northville, which is on the other side of the road, a lot of these people are playing one side against the other. I am trying to get, as one Commissioner, the best we can get within the confines of Livonia. That is why the statements you have made as far as the records are concerned about the brick, etc. that can come back to haunt you at some other date. Mr. Walkon: I expect it to. Mr. Alanskas: I think the question before us tonight is one thing. The property right now is ML. Should it stay ML in accordance with the Land Use Plan or should we say things have been changing, they are going to continue to change for the property, is it proper to be C-2? We now have C-2 right behind this property. We have C-2 to the north of it. We have C-2 to the south of it and now with Northville we are going to have C-2 across the street. The question is, is it proper to have these 33 acres C-2? I, as one Commissioner, think it is proper for C-2 providing certain things. Number one Mr. Walkon, what about traffic on Haggerty Road? It is a big concern. Mr. Walkon: It is a big concern of ours. We have commissioned a traffic study. We expect to have it any day now and we will supply it to you. The name of the company doing the study is Reid, Cool & Michalski and they are in the process of doing the study right now. Mr. Alanskas: Too bad you didn't have it this evening because we are meeting with Northville Twp. in approximately two weeks, because that corridor from Eight Mile and Haggerty down to Seven Mile and Haggerty, there is a lot of traffic and if you are going to be putting in four or five tenants. How many is it you plan for that area? Mr. Walkon: Four to five and that is a guess. Mr. Alanskas: Not more than five? Mr. Walkon: It depends. The department store is saying 80,000 square feet. It will change the numbers around a bit and that is what we are hoping for. Mr. Alanskas: I myself can see this going C-2 as long as we don't have a problem with the traffic. There is a problem there right now. You are going to have many, many people coming to these facilities. That will be a big concern of mine. I think it is proper to go C-2 at this time. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Walkon, you mentioned one thing alluding to what is going on across the street. Although this is Livonia, we should get a little insight as to what our neighbors to the west are doing. Do you have anything you can shed on that? You mentioned some of your potential clients were contacting the Ward Church property. N.. 13176 Mr. Walkon: I don't think it is appropriate for me to be the spokesperson. I think the Planning Department would be better suited to answer the question but where the Ward Church is, is being made into what I refer to as a PUD. Part of that property will be residential and part of that property will be commercial. My understanding is that fiw about between 40 and 60 acres are going to be commercial. Our position is that as far as traffic is concerned, the impact of traffic will be much less where we are proposing the site than if the site is in Northville at the Ward Church. It would be much, much better for the City of Livonia and Livonia gets the jump on the gun between us and the Northville property and that is important for one main reason. There are all kinds of tenants and we want the Cadillacs, we want the Lincolns. We really don't want the Volkswagens so the faster we can move the better chance we have at grabbing those Cadillacs and Lincolns. Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, you said three or four times that you are looking at two department stores. Can you give us your definition of what you mean by department stores? Do you mean like Hudsons, Sears, Montgomery Wards or Kmart? Mr. Walkon: The two department stores are presently located in the area. They are not in the nature of discount department stores. To tell you much more than that would be to betray a confidence. I think I know what you look for and look to. They are the type of department stores that you can be proud of having in Livonia. Mr. McCann: Is Kmart to you a discount store? I don't know what qualifies as a department store. I grew up thinking Hudsons is a department store. '411u` Mr. Walkon: I would agree with you. Hudsons is a department store and that is in my definition of the type of stores we are talking about. A Hudson type generic. Mr. Morrow: John, what is the size of the development of the Target and the failed Source Club? Mr. Nagy: The Target Store is approximately 110,000 square feet. Mr. Morrow: How many acres do those two cover? Mr. Nagy: In excess of 25 acres. Mr. Morrow: This is 33 acres so it is comparable in size. Mr. Nagy: Larger but comparable. Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. Dan Murphy: I am Senior Vice President of Paine-Webber. Our office is at Seven Mile and Haggerty. They bring up a good point. Yes things are 13177 changing in the area but Seven Mile and Haggerty, I think it is important to have a traffic study because south of Seven Mile on Haggerty there is a hill where the American Community Insurance is and in the three years our office has been there, there probably has been three to seven serious car accidents at Seven Mile and 'No, Haggerty because what happens it goes from two lanes to one lane as you go north of Seven Mile. Cars come over that hill and cars turning left try to make a left hand turn and they don't expect a car and a car comes over that hill very quickly and there is an accident. A lot of my employees come down at Eight Mile and Haggerty and turn left on Seven Mile and the more traffic that is there, I think that is the biggest issue. I would like to see more business come to the City for our business but I think the traffic is probably the biggest issue that has to be addressed. I also come from Eight Mile and Haggerty and that is a concern. Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy in response to what Mr. Murphy just said. Mr. Nagy, this is only a zoning item at this particular time but when we get involved with the site plan, if he is successful with this petition, will we be able to go ahead and put a deceleration lane there to accommodate problems? In other words, is that something that can be borne by the petitioner as happened in other instances in the City or is this something we would be involved with? Mr. Nagy: We will get involved during the site plan review process. Haggerty Road is a borderline road between two communities and it is planned to be a five-lane pavement just like it is north of the Haggerty Tech Center. It will be widened. It will have a deceleration lane that you refer to. Not only will those plans be reviewed by the City of Livonia but also by the Wayne County Traffic Commission so there will be other agencies that also will be involved in the review process. It certainly will be part of the site plan review process to see that there is adequate lane widening and deceleration lanes to accommodate the increased traffic that will likely be brought about by this petition. Mr. Tent: We could circumvent this problem with that site if we draw attention to what they are looking for. Mr. Nagy: That is part of the planning process. Pat Devlin, 15799 Southampton: I stand in support of this development. I think, based on the fact of the jobs it will bring in the area, including the construction jobs, I stand in support. I think we do have an opportunity here to beat our fellow neighbor to the jump and we should take that opportunity and go ahead and do that. Mr. McCann: Are you involved in any way? Mr. Devlin: Just a resident. 13178 Dave Lowes, 38229 Roycroft Ct. : I live right down the street from this project. I am a carpenter that lives in the area. I worked on the Target store and I appreciate going down there to work. I stand in support of this development. Jim Caris, 9399 Patton: I live in the forgotten southwest corner of our fair City. I stand in support of this project. I think it will generate a lot of construction jobs. I am a construction worker. I am concerned about that. Hearing the gentleman's presentation about the type of stores and facilities that are going to go in, and I travel around a lot of the communities, if the development is such as the gentleman talks about, I think Livonia should take advantage of the situation and okay it and I am 100% for it. Diane Bommarito, 19273 Glen Eagle: In stand in favor of the project from what has been outlined here. I am concerned with the area. I was very concerned when I heard about the Source Club situation. I think the whole area would be enhanced by this project. From what I heard tonight it sounds like the traffic will be there any way. It sounds like a beautiful project and that is an area where I am all the time so I look forward to it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-1-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #1-2-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1993 on Petition 93-11-1-17 by Seven Mile and Haggerty Assoc. (proponent) and Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership (owner), 'tour requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road and east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from ML to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-11-1-17 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of uses in the subject area to serve the community. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible with proposed uses planned in the neighboring community to the west, Northville. 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. LaPine: I would like to make a substitute motion to table. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion died for lack of support. Mr. Tent: The reason I made the proposal for approval is because I am confident with what the developer is going to do. I have seen the 13179 things he has done in the area and he has made some pretty firm commitments. I recognize this is just a zoning change and they could dispose of the property any time they want to before they take action on it but I am not afraid that will be done in this `. particular case. They have a good reputation. They have gone on record with the things they are going to do and I mentioned this will come to haunt them if they renege on this. I feel this is good and we should go forward and that is the reason why I made this recommendation for approval. Mr. LaPine: I want to speak in opposition based on a number of points. First, we have a Master Plan. It took a lot of study and this land was zoned ML for a reason. I think what is happening here, everyone is panicking. The big deal is Northville is going to develop some property. Because Northville is going to develop some property in commercial zoning, that if we have an opportunity to get those businesses over here we should scrap all our past plans and rezone this property. Maybe it needs to be rezoned but I think personally we are moving way too fast. We should postpone this thing at least until we have our meeting with the Northville Planning Commission, the joint meeting we have set up, and check out exactly what their plans are. We can always come back. Just because the petitioner feels he wants to be on a fast track, I don't think we should be on a fast track. Whatever we do here we will be stuck with for the rest of our days and there is no reason to panic just because the petitioner feels he has to be on the fast track. Just because there is a possibility they are going to get some development in Northville, that doesn't mean we should rezone property on this side of Haggerty Road to accommodate that. Maybe it should be New rezoned but we shouldn't go into this without taking a little more time to study it. Mr. McCann: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine in many respects. I think I could be persuaded with some development in there. As to how much and what type, I think it needs further study but at this point it doesn't appear there is enough for a tabling resolution_. I am just not yet satisfied with it. I do want to see more work coming into Livonia. I do want to see more jobs but Livonia was built over a period of 40 years and because this project hasn't developed in the last five years as expected doesn't mean it won't in the next five. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas NAYS: LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tangora: Mr. Chairman, since we are on somewhat of a fast track, we would like to ask for a waiver of the seven-day rule. 13180 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #1-3-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning `„s. Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 93-11-1-17 by Seven Mile and Haggerty Assoc. (proponent) and Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership (owner), requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road and east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from ML to C-2. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-1-18 by Wheeler & Sons Building Co. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. vim. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 feet) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Further, it should be determined at this time the manner in which Birch Run Avenue will be terminated east of the proposed rezoning area (cul-de-sac) to determine if additional right-of-way will be required from future Parcels "E" and "F". We have also received a letter from Ronald Parz stating this rezoning petition has his complete support. He states he is totally in favor of anything that will improve Livonia. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please come forward. John Wheeler, 16183 Winchester Dr. : We propose to rezone from RUF to R-1 for a lot split development of single family homes to correspond with the Hunters Pointe, the new subdivision there. They will be homes of that quality. Mr. Morrow: When you say a lot split do you have two separate parcels? Mr. Wheeler: A street dead ends there. We are going to continue it through. My understanding is the owner to the east is also up for a lot split. Mr. Alanskas: You will have six lots with this lot split? Mr. Wheeler: Yes. 13181 Mr. Alanskas: What will the size of the homes be in square footage? Mr. Wheeler: About 1340 and 1700 square feet. Mr. Alanskas: Will they be all brick? Mr. Wheeler: Yes, all masonry brick. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 111-4-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1994 on Petition 93-11-1-18 by Wheeler & Sons Building Co. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-11-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a reasonable use of two long narrow acreage parcels. — FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 1543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-1-19 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P0, PO III and C-4III 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. We also have a letter dated January 7, 1994 from the Windsor Capital Group, Inc. This letter reads we have recently been informed that the Planning Commission of the City of Livonia is considering a rezoning request of a parcel of property north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway located 13182 in the Victor Corporate Park. We are the owners of the Embassy Suites Hotel located north of and directly adjacent to this property. We have made an investment of over $26,000,000 in our facility in anticipation of being part of a high quality corporate `r.. office park development. We were repeatedly promised by representatives of Victor Corporate Park that we would be surrounded by high rise office facilities leased to tenants that would be customers of our hotel and restaurant facilities. To date all of these promises, commitments, and expectations remain unfulfilled, Now we are being told that the developer wants to change the zoning so that he may develop a low-rise warehouse-type building for retail use. We are firmly and unalterably opposed to this rezoning. This hotel has struggled financially for the last several years and it has required us to apply disproportionate financial resources and management time trying to improve its performance. We have been hampered in our success because of the developer's failure to fulfill his obligations regarding the completion of development of Victor Corporate Park. To grant his request for a change of zoning, such as is being proposed, will forever condemn our hotel to economic oblivion. While we recognize that market conditions have not been favorable towards office development, that does not mean that these conditions will always remain. The last thing Livonia needs is more strip retail along Interstate 275. If the community is to fulfill its expectations for quality corporate development it will not do so by rezoning valuable real property assets just to suit short-term economic objectives of the land owners. If you will recall, in order to have this property zoned in the first place, Victor Corporate Park made many promises to the City and to ourselves. We expect the fir. City to require that Victor Corporate Park honor their promises and commitments. This all-suite hotel is a quality amenity for the City of Livonia and it is in the best long term interest of everyone that everything reasonable be done to ensure its success. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner or his representative here tonight? David Johnson: I am the Chairman of Victor International. The address is on Northwestern Highway in Southfield. I think the most appropriate way to proceed with this is to give you a little bit of history on the property itself. We started with this property with 11 different acquisitions in 1984 and 1985 and at that time the market for offices was booming throughout the United States. (He presented the original site plan that was used in the zoning process) This was approved and zoned in 1985, nine years ago. In 1988 this was modified. At that time 25 acres were sold to Digital Equipment Company on the north and Embassy Suites Hotel was in this section here (he pointed this out on the plan) and we entered into a joint venture with Hillman Corporation, one of the largest national office developers in the United States. This was re-master planned and site plan approved. The infrastructure was put in for the entire project and these three buildings were site plan approved with parking decks in this area, which would hold 2600 cars and approximately 750,000 feet. The market deteriorated and Hillman proceeded and built what is now called Victor V. The 13183 construction started in 1990 and it is now approaching full occupancy. (Mr. Johnson presented more plans of the area. ) We are requesting that the commercial area be extended between Cantina delRio and the Embassy Suites. It is self-buffered within our own property by I-275. It is industrial zoning with CBS Fox on the other side of the property and Target and the Source Club over here and we are self-buffered from any residential areas by the remainder of our property. In addition to that, in the master plan we have remodified and removed a retail user and taken this down from high-rise to low-rise office and no more parking decks. To do that we have to understand where we are at today and what we wanted to come there was a specific user for retail use that would compliment the corporate park and compliment the project we have. We have the available land that is undeveloped. We will still have 550,000 square feet of office space. The overall office market in the City of Livonia is two million square feet so we would have 25% of the total office space that exists today still remaining to be developed. I have quite a team of people here. Dennis Burnside with Grubb & Ellis. They are the largest office broker in the state. John Cavalito who is the number one office broker. I would like to have them give a brief presentation on the condition of the market place and the efforts they have used on our project and what the overall scope of the project is. Mr. Burnside: (He presented slides showing figures on the office market for the suburban Detroit area. ) In the metropolitan area there is about seven and a half million square feet of vacant space available just in the suburban market, not counting downtown, and in the best years of our business we would absorb a million and a half square Nft,, feet of space in any one given year, so with that scenario it would take six to seven years to absorb the current space that is available right now under the best of circumstances. Since the mid 80's we are using less and less office space so the extreme cynical person would say that there is probably 10 to 15 years of vacant office space available. The realistic person would say 8 to 12 years of vacant space available over the next period of time. Mr. Tent: How come there was an absence of Livonia in your study? Mr. Burnside: These slides don't reflect Livonia. It was in there but it is missing. Mr. Tent: Could that be because Livonia is very cautious in its office zoning? We have had several developers that wanted to come in here and the time wasn't right and if we had gone ahead and approved them, we would be in the same situation as Southfield, Troy, etc. We have been very careful and now maybe the time is changing. We have a good parkway here, Victor Parkway, and at the right time we have a marketable product within our City because of the way we run things. That is a concern of mine. I feel that the occupancy rate with the office space we have here in Livonia is very stable. Mr. Burnside: I am sorry. Livonia was in the slide presentation I had before. 13184 Mr. Morrow: I think the bottom line you are getting to is the lease rates will probably be coming down as far as competing to fill up this seven and a half million square feet. In other words, if you bring on extreme new buildings, built at $120 to $130 a square foot to 'lam, compete with buildings that are being redone at $40 to $50 a square foot, obviously the lease rates can come down. Is that a fair assumption. Mr. Burnside: I think there are two points to be said to that. One is that first and foremost it is our experience in the last three years that lending institutions who have historically lent money for office developments have stopped. The well has run dry as far as they are concerned. It is exactly because economically the rents that are justified to represent some sort of investment return to the owners and the lenders, the difference cannot be justified. To build a new building today arguably you would need rents in the $20 a square foot range minimum to justify an investment, but the market is saying you can rent space from $12 to $15 a square foot depending on what part of town you are in. The return on the investment is not there. Mr. Johnson: I would like Mr. Nagy to read the letter signed by the Hillman Company. Ray Hildreth is also here to answer questions but I think the letter summarizes his intent. Mr. Nagy: This letter dated December 14, 1993 is addressed to Joe Taylor, President and Honorable Members of Council and references Petition No. 93-12-1-19 - Rezoning Victor Corporate Park. We ask that you accept this letter written on behalf of Victor Corporate Park Limited Partnership, owners of the property commonly referred to as Victor V, 19500 Victor Parkway and Hillman Properties, Inc. as its formal support of David Johnson's petition to rezone the vacant land south of the Embassy Suite's Hotel, north of the Cantina del Rio and west of Victor Parkway from PO-III to C-2. Having been actively involved in the marketing and promotion of the Victor site since 1988, we must reluctantly acknowledge that the vision originally conceived for the Park is now only a very remote possibility. Influences beyond our control will not permit us to develop the property according to our original master plan. As such, we must look to the opportunities which best suit the site in light of the current market and development trends. You have come to recognize that the marketing efforts of Victor Corporate Park have never been viewed in the near term. But rather, they have always been focused on the best possible use for the property and the City of Livonia. Clearly, it is not in the best interest of the developer or the City to see this property remain vacant and unimproved. But that is precisely what will happen if we do not reconsider our original vision for a high rise office park. A return on the investment that we made in Victor Corporate Park and its development potential must now be realized. Unfortunately, it will not be as a full service mid and high rise corporate office park; but rather, as a diverse mixed use development composed of both office and commercial uses which are complementary to the 13185 existing hotel, office building and restaurant. This is, in our opinion, a positive change in direction and development philosophy for the Park. `., The proposal being made by David Johnson to rezone the property from PO-III to C2, again demonstrates his continued commitment to provide the City of Livonia with a quality development despite the change in uses. The development restrictions and architectural controls negotiated by David Johnson will preserve the quality of the Park and vision that we jointly sought for this property. David has been attentive to the possible impacts of a large retail user and the existing uses which include a hotel and mid rise office building by providing definitive and well landscaped buffering between the dissimilar uses. The image of the Park has not been compromised; as David, again, has required the developer of the proposed retail use to construct its building from materials which are similar to that of the office building. Storage yards, trash collection and receiving have been located or architecturally treated to mitigate against their possible adverse impact to adjoining properties and uses. We applaud David's continued commitment to his vision and insistence on quality. As David's associate in the development of the Park, Hillman Properties, Inc. will continue to pursue office development within the Park. However, the vision that conceived high rise structures towering from the Park must now be abandoned in favor of a more responsive vision for the Park which blends low and mid rise office buildings, retail, hotels and restaurant uses. This diversity in uses will expand the opportunity to realize the potential of Som. property. Coming to the conclusion that a redirection was required was not arrived at without considerable thought and debate. But a redirection and new focus is required for Victor Park. We ask for your consideration and support of Petition No. 93-12-1-19. This was signed by M. Raymond Hildreth, Vice President, Development, Hillman Properties, Inc. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Hildreth is here and he will answer any questions you have. I think what we are here to talk about is not an abandonment of our plan but a change in our master plan of a 100 acre piece of property that is a substantial piece of property to Livonia and to the general market place in a decade of change. Who would have envisioned ten years ago that we would be dealing with a free Russia, that we would be dealing with computers that are running businesses. That has changed the way corporate America is doing business in its office market place but it has also changed the way it is doing business in its retail market place. The traditional strip centers from a retailing standpoint are changing to accommodate the needs of the people for the 90's in the way they are doing retail. What we wanted to accomplish is to come to you with not only a request to change zoning so we could go out and seek a retail user but we wanted to come with a complete concept of an overall modified master plan that would take us through the 90's and into the 2000's with a retail user that is a deep-pocketed, what I call a 3,000 pound gorilla, that is going to stand behind 13186 their commitment and would do business consistent with the future in the way we are going to need the retail to be done with the office environment that would exist within the park and this section of Livonia. `. We went on a two to three year search to find the right user because we have the most at stake with the office building and the hotel and to take into consideration the overall effect on the area and general traffic. What we tried to do is come up with an individual user that would occupy not the entire park but a 15 acre parcel of land that sets in between the hotel and Cantina delRio on a vacant piece of land, where the office property would set to the north of the hotel, across the street adjacent to the existing office building that is filled and again with the concept of the self-buffering divided by Victor Parkway. What we tried to do from there is take the concept that was addressed in the original zoning of the 12-story office building with the three-story parking deck with the hotel in the background and then insert what we are talking about. Instead of a 750,000 square feet, 144 foot tall building in here, we would go with a single-user, retail structure all brick, high-quality architectural design and elimination of the high-rise buildings. In our search to find the right user we concluded on a hometown boy, Builders Square II backed by the Kmart Corporation, and with the concept of total dedication to quality and a flagship store and not a standard prototype store. What we wanted was something that was consistent with the office buildings that existed within the Nft. corporate park, consistent with the CBS Fox industrial facility across the street, that was complimentary to the park and the overall design. So this building was created from a concept standpoint and we then got together with the Ramco-Gershensen Company, which is one of the largest retail owners in the United States, to work this out and get a 25 year commitment from the Kmart Corporation and Ramco-Gershensen. We also designed this with a great deal of sensitivity to the hotel, contrary to the letter that was read. We started dealing with the hotel on this back in September before we had entered into any agreement with Builders Square and Ramco-Gershensen and we had a number of site plans back and forth. Our commitment was instead of 20 foot buffers, from 100 to 150 foot buffers between the building and the hotel trying to be sympathetic to all users. This store would typically fit on 11 acres. This represents 15.6 acres and there is about 3 acres that are a greenbelt area. Between the hotel and Builders Square is over two acres with an 8 foot berm and 200 evergreen trees to soften this building. The concept was that we still have the majority of our office land which would go into a downsize mode of 500,000 square feet. The original concept would have held three million square feet of office. Again, there is a total of two million square feet of office that exists in Livonia today. We would have loved to have seen the 12-story high rises and the parking deck but that is unrealistic in today's world. I would like to turn this meeting over to Ted Simons of Builders Square. 13187 Ted Simons: I would like to tell you first that Builders Square is a division of the Kmart Corporation with 165 stores and over three billion dollars in sales. We are in the Detroit area right now with 12 units. We have three units under construction right now. In the +ft. next five years I anticipate we will have 20 to 25 of our type stores within this area. We intend and would like to be in Livonia with a second location with a flagship store that is of the highest quality and matches the architectural features of what else is in the existing development with brick, an enclosed garden area and a very, very fine complimentary operation for use by homeowners and people that live within Livonia themselves. I am here to answer any questions relative to our coming to Livonia. Mr. Tent: What I am concerned about at this particular time is the zoning and, of course, the entire project but the zoning now. In the event Kmart is successful and the land is zoned commercial, they can walk away from it and we are stuck with a commercial piece of land there. You indicated that Kmart would be the principal user of this particular piece of property. Mr. Simons: Builders Square will be the user of this facility. In answer to your concern, Builders Square is entering into a 25-year lease to use the facility guaranteed by the Kmart Corporation. Mr. Tent: What I am concerned with is the use of the property. There was an article in the Detroit News January 6th about the Kmart organization. Kmart needs the cash. In other words, they don't have the big pocketbook because they have gone through reorganization and they have sold Pace. It said one drawback Kmart Niftpr won't be able to move forward with the initial public offering until shareholders approve the deal in May. That was for the Builders Square. In other words, you have indicated it would be a separate subsidiary of the Kmart but they haven't gotten the approval that the money is going to come in to fund these Builders Squares. Mr. Simons: What the Kmart Corporation has done recently has taken some accounting adjustments in order to plan for the future. Much of what was pointed out is similar to what General Motors did several years ago recognizing that business has changed and taken some adjustments and moved forward to prosper in the future. One of these things the Kmart Corporation will be doing is issuing stock to the public for minority interest in various subsidiaries, Builders Square is one of their subsidiaries, keeping the majority interest for the parent company. That will in turn, from the Kmart prospective, raise some additional capital that they can use for their own corporate needs but doesn't affect our use and operation in this facility. Mr. Tent: In that same general area the Source Club is gone and I understand, and I don't know if it is verified yet, that Home Quarters is going to be moving in that area. That is the same type of operation as Builders Square. Out in Northville there will be one of the Home Depots. The entire area there is going to have that type of service. How will Kmart compete with all these other operations? 13188 Mr. Simons: We are the most experienced in the Detroit area. We, of course, before coming in and making a big investment do a great deal of study and hire independent consultants. We found the market is extremely growth oriented out this way. It is a very successful market for ourselves. We have come in here with a great deal of ,` study and believe firmly this will be a very successful operation for ourselves. I think what the Council ought to consider is how viable the retail area is by the simple fact that the Source Club across the street hasn't been empty very long and apparently there is somebody willing to step up and take its place, so that should alleviate any concern you might have in the event we are not successful, but we firmly believe this will be a successful operation. Mr. Tent: The other thing I question you on is the location. That is primarily an office complex area. It is our golden corridor. You have probably noticed there aren't a bunch of flashy signs and it is very sophisticated. With Kmart how are you going to sell your product in an area like that without your big K and the big circle and the big entranceway and a lot of fanfare off the freeway? If you don't do that, who is going to find it? Mr. Simons: You have every single automobile traveling up and down I-275 looking out that way and seeing the restaurant that exists there and also the buildings that exist there. We believe firmly that just by the location and geographically where it is, it is the best located facility of all our competitors. That is why we are so strongly interested in locating here. Mr. Alanskas: I have a few questions. The building that you propose there I would term as a Tai Mahal of buildings. Number one, anything David Johnson has done has always been first class in the City and he has always been the first one to help charities because he always wanted to be a part of the community. The question is Mr. Johnson you made the comment that this would compliment the hotel and restaurant. To my mind you have people coming to this beautiful building and they are carrying out 2 x 4's, they are carrying out sinks, they are carrying out paneling. How does that compliment a hotel and restaurant? Mr. Johnson: It is very common for a hotel to be located next to a retail facility. The Marriott is located next to Laurel Park, The Hyatt Regency and Ritz Carlton are located next to Fairlane Mall. Mr. Alanskas: I go to the Builders Square quite often. I would say at least 50% of your customers come there in trucks. They are individual people that do their own home work and in that parkway to have this traffic back and forth all day long, I don't think the building belongs there. If you said on Haggerty Road I would say fine but in that corridor you have that small parkway and to have a business of that type, I don't see how it compliments the hotel or the restaurant. 13189 Mr. Johnson: The main way it compliments the restaurant is by people being in the service area. It is a direct compliment to the restaurant. The answer with the hotel is that we have had criticism from the hotel for a long time. They didn't want to be in the middle of a field. They were in support of retail versus being in the middle of a field. We felt we did not want a strip center. The only firy thing that is marketable in today's real estate world is retail. This is not a short term compromise. We are the ones with the most at stake. We did a lot of homework to determine whether we thought it was compatible. Hillman has a twenty million dollar investment in the office building across the street and we felt because of what we were able to accomplish from the design standpoint, quality architecture and landscaping around it, the parkway is a four-lane road that we built and this is a wholly-contained facility that does not have any outdoor storage and we felt it would be consistent. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a garden center? Mr. Johnson: It is contained inside. The theme was Builders Square had to agree to make a facility that was equal to or better than CBS Fox directly across the street, which is an industrial use. In any event what we wanted was a building that was physically compatible from a material standpoint, landscaping standpoint, and would fit the location. Mr. Tent: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hildreth wrote a letter dated 12-3-93 regarding the project and his investment. He indicated times have changed, etc. Now what do you intend to do, say if you were successful with this zoning for commercial, what would you do with the balance of the property? Mr. Johnson: We did not want to come with a blanket request for C-2 zoning without having a definitive user because of its impact on the other buildings and because of our holdings. What we worked on and I showed it earlier was a downsized new master plan for the balance of the park keeping it consistent with the office use that is mid-rise and low-rise office instead of 8 to 12 story buildings with parking decks, four-story buildings, and the balance of the park will still hold 550,000 square feet of five-story and below office buildings. We are the ones with the most at stake and with all the rest of the land that remains and basically it is self-buffered. Mr. Tent: Could we expect another letter in five years saying for the balance of the property you can't move ahead? You want to change your plans again? Mr. Johnson: Hillman owns the office building. I own the land. I have agreed in discussions with the Mayor that we would enter into an agreement for at least five years to hold the balance of the land as office zoning. Mr. Morrow: I will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone present wishing to speak for or against this petition. 13190 Stephen Bromberg: I am with the firm Butzel Long, 32270 Telegraph Road, Birmingham. I am here on behalf of the Windsor Capital Group and the Livonia Hotel Associates, which are the owners and operators of the Embassy Suites Hotel. Initially I would like to state that we did not receive a notice of this particular session until the middle of last week. I don't know where you are sending the notices but I would hope if I give you the address of the hotel from now on we can have notices of any further proceedings sent to us there so we would get a timely notice. Mr. Morrow: Sir, let me just check with the staff as it relates to that. Do we have a notice of any type of service to that group? Mr, Nagy: Yes we sent it right to their address at 19525 Victor Parkway. Mr. Bromberg: That is the current address. It wasn't to the attention of Mr. Gutkowski the General Manager, and we did not receive it and as a result we have been scrambling and I am at a slight disadvantage in that I have not had months to prepare a great number of exhibits to show our position in the same fashion. We purchased this property in 1988. We built the hotel and it was completed in 1990. We have been operating for three years in very bad times and we have been subsidizing the operation of this hotel during this period waiting for what we believed to be what we had been promised in connection with this project. I would like, since I had no opportunity to prepare something, to give you what I could do, which is a document which Mr. Johnson prepared. It is called the Victor Corporate Park Master Plan. If I may pass this among you and then refer to it. I apologize for the fact I didn't have time to do anything in a proper fashion. Mr. Morrow: I want the record to show we did send it to your facility and it was internal from there. Mr. Nagy: I think the other point we should mention, it is an ordinance requirement that the property be posted and there was a sign advising the general public that this property was subject to a zoning change and that was posted 30 days prior to this hearing. Mr. Bromberg: We will make every effort within our organization and Mr. Gutkowski, who is the Managing Director is here, and he will make certain that anything that comes to us is given notice. We ended up with a situation that this happened very quickly as far as we were concerned. You will see what was proposed for this park is on what is called a Master Plan that David prepared for this particular project. The Master Plan shows that number 9 is the Embassy Suites Hotel. The property that he is proposing to rezone for the Builders Square use is property number 3 and number 1 area, immediately adjacent. The 3 and 1, if you are out there, you will see the elevations of the property to the south where he is talking about building are substantially lower. If he attempts to build a berm, he is only N... 13111 going to be able to partially obscure the view because the hotel is substantially higher. It is a five-story hotel. What is going to happen is, certainly above the second floor, everybody is going to be looking down at this commercial operation. It is not something that we particularly like in terms of our situation. '`. I think the very best way I can describe to you what we understood is simply to quote Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson's attorney and Mr. Johnson's architect from 1986. I am now quoting from page 9525 of the minutes of January 7, 1986 before this Planning Commission. He said his plans for an office park included his vision of "ideal luxury office buildings" which would "be an asset to the City of Livonia". At page 9524 Mr. Tangora, his attorney, said he, referring to Mr. Johnson, is not going to be selling off parcels of land. He will present a master plan and he will adhere to that plan. Then in front of the Council on February 19, 1986, page 3 of the minutes, I am quoting from Mr. Johnson "There will be no retail shopping, no fast food shops, no uses of commercial other than hotel to support the office needs, a conference center and a couple of restaurants with fine dining". And then Ken Newman his architect stated, and this is on page 4 of those minutes, "It is our intent to make the buildings physically, characteristically unified, use the same materials throughout the project". Certainly not what we are hearing tonight. Then on page 5 "we believe this will be the finest project of its type in the metropolitan area". On page 9, this is Mr. Johnson, "We will maintain all of the ownership of the buildings expressed here except for the hotel. It will be controlled by us and used with our buildings. Their health club facilities will be used for our office people and also a luxury auditorium with all the appropriate electronic controls also ;` used by our office building. The hotel and the restaurant are to support our office facilities to the corporate park, We are not in the retail business or commercial sales." That was at page 9. Page 23, again I am quoting, "It is our goal for Victor International and our track record to dedicate ourselves to developing a quality project. We take pride in our work and have commitments to quality and we have made long-term commitments with the communities we have done business with." I submit to you that we are dealing with retail shopping, we are dealing with short-term commitments, we are dealing with an entirely different approach than we were told for this luxury office park and that is the basis on which the zoning was obtained, which changed the zoning, which was an RUFC zoning to a more intense use. Now we are talking about increasing the intensity again to a commercial use. We have a problem. There is no question that the office market has been depressed. There is also no question that the economy is now beginning, ever so slowly, to change. There is no question at all, in my mind, since I represent several local banks in closings, that there are now becoming loan closings. Things are beginning to happen again, slowly but they are happening. As for proper borrowers they can get loans. Also, at one point Mr. Burnside's operation, Grubb & Ellis, a very well-known and highly respected organization, published data which 13192 indicated that there were ten million square feet of vacant office space in the metropolitan Detroit area. He just indicated tonight that may be somewhat less. He cited a figure of 7.5 million in the suburban area and that is an indication that there is something happening in this market place. It is happening slowly but it is happening. From a zoning law standpoint we cannot have zoning done for short-term economic gain. That is not the purpose of zoning. We are dealing with property, which is supposed to be reasonable in its use in comparison with the surrounding properties. The short-term economic problems don't have anything to do with this and all we are hearing is we have an economic problem which we must resolve. You may have an economic problem but that doesn't require a change in zoning. From the standpoint of the hotel, we are very much opposed to the Builders Square. We feel it is not compatible or in harmony with the office development. The intent, when we entered into this project was not to have retail next door. As a matter of fact, if you would look at the Embassy Suites throughout the United States, you will find that many of them are in office parks. Some of them are adjacent to malls but none of them are in the middle of a retail situation or right next door to a retail situation. That is not quite the same situation. I think it was indicated that there could possibly be a domino effect here. You are zoning a piece of property in the middle of a project C-2. You are permitting commercial use. What happens if somebody to the north and west, who has another piece of property, says to you "Oh, now you have commercial. You just granted commercial. I want commercial." You are going to have, from a standpoint of our case law in the State of Michigan, an extremely difficult job in turning down that particular request because you are going to have just granted a request of that sort on adjacent property. I think it was mentioned before that there is no guarantee that Builders Square will be successful and I am not here to discuss the financial structure of Kmart or its subsidiaries. However, if for whatever reason, they don't have sales or for whatever reason they are not successful, you have C-2 zoning. C-2 zoning will permit multiple retail uses and then how do you deal with a new series of site plans for site malls or whatever comes in as a result of that? The Master Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia provides that it is a goal to "encourage the timely development of those properties along the I-96 and I-275 Freeways having locational advantages for office development." In other words, it is the principle of the City of Livonia, in its Master Plan, to promote office development along I-275, which is exactly what happened here. Then under the implementation heading of the Future Land Use Plan it states that the policy is to "reduce the amount of commercial zoning to make 13193 "total acreage commensurate with the population's ability to support it". Further, under the summary and conclusion portion it says "office development will be used as a viable and stable alternative to commercial land use. Office land uses will primarily be near the Civic Center and adjacent to the I-275 Freeway". I submit to you that the existing office use in this project is consistent with the principles of the Master Land Use Plan, the zoning rules, not the economic problems, the zoning rules that are applicable here. I also submit to you that what you are being asked to do is known as spot zoning. If you will check with counsel you will find there are cases in the State of Michigan which clearly state that municipalities cannot go forward with spot zoning. That is an improper approach. I submit to you that to permit this project to go forward as requested by David, you will destroy the original concepts of the luxury office projects, which was the basis of the hotel people coming in so that they had a base for their guests coming to the hotel. I submit to you that you will destroy some of the investment of this hotel and raise questions as to its economic viability. They have gone through a period in which they have subsidized their operation on the theory that what was committed to them will take place, that there will be an office development here which would ultimately support the situation so they were willing to continue forward on that basis. This would destroy that clearly and also would then create questions as to the jobs, etc. that are involved. For all of these reasons I strongly urge rejection of the rezoning. Nour Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask you a couple of questions. Earlier you heard from Mr. Johnson some contacts had been made prior to discussions of any substance with Kmart or Builders Square Corporation. Were there informal discussions with your firm on what the intent was on that property? Mr. Bromberg: There was some correspondence back and forth. We never agreed to this situation. We have always opposed it. I can't comment on the timing which is implicit in what you are saying. I don't know when he spoke to Kmart vis-a-vis when he spoke to us. I can only indicate to you that yes there was some correspondence and yes there was a rejection on our part and yes there were objections on the part of our principals as to this project going forward for the reasons I recited. Mr. Morrow: So the contacts where made but as far as you know, they were not in agreement with the proposal. Mr. Bromberg: Last Friday I read those letters and to the best of my recollection on Tuesday there was no such agreement at all. There was never an agreement. Mr. Morrow: In your business transactions were there ever any covenants as to preclude any type of zoning that he might want to do or is it just his vision that he talked about? 13194 Mr. Bromberg: This is a very unusual project. Mr. Johnson was able to convince people when they bought pieces of property from him that they should not have standard building and use restrictions with negative reciprocal easements, which means there are no restrictions which cover the other pieces of property, only his ability to enforce restrictions against them subject to certain limitations. However, there is definitely contractual language which I have read which indicates it would survive a closing as to the hotel property being purchased and which provides for an office park. Mr. Morrow: One of the things as indicated, we cannot condition zoning. Any property owner has at his disposal the opportunity to petition the City for a change. Curiously, you said this would be a case of spot zoning. I am not saying we are going to approve it or disapprove it but if I am looking at the map correctly, isn't that the hotel on the C-2 site? Mr. Bromberg: No, it is on a C:-4III site. Mr. Morrow: Which is commercial. Mr. Bromberg: Yes and it is also commercial where the restaurant is but you will recall the original statements the zoning was done on this property with those various peculiar lines so that we could have an office project which would have the benefit of the hotel and the restaurant. They were only put in there in conjunction with the office project and only for the benefit of it and I have read Mr. Johnson's statement in which he says that. Mr. Morrow: The point I was making, I certainly understand the vision that you were under and where you are coming from but from a planning standpoint it would appear to me if that were to change, it would just be filling in between two commercial sites. Mr. Bromberg: If you ignore what originally occurred here and from a strictly theoretical standpoint, you have a commercial C-2 and you have a commercial C-4III but that isn't the situation here. Those zoning classifications were put in only in conjunction with the office project. I read the statements from Mr. Johnson. The only reason he had it there was to service the office park. This is not the normal situation. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make that point. I understand how the property came about to be rezoned. We do know that times change and we try to follow the Master Plan as close as we can but we have to recognize times do change. I am not saying I am for or against this I am just making that point. Do you have anything else sir? Mr. Bromberg: T have one final point. The reason I gave you the Master Plan was to show you what the intent was. You can see from the Master Plan that was prepared by Mr. Johnson's company that that is exactly what they were proposing here, an office park in conjunction with which we would have these amenities for the use of the occupants. 13195 Laurie Good, 37379 St. Martins: I feel a little like David against Goliath with the presentation. I live on the east side of the property in the residential homes and I can understand the gentleman before me and what he had to say. I wouldn't want to pay $250 to $275 a night for a hotel room and look down on a Builders Square in the parking lot and the construction that would take place before that. I am here to talk about not the environment strictly in Victor Park, which I think is beautiful. I walk there all the time. I am speaking as a resident. Number one, I am wondering first of all if the people who own condominiums there on Victor Parkway between Seven and Eight Mile, if they even know what the plan is because I am sure the traffic is going to be increased one hundred fold. The traffic there at Seven Mile and Newburgh right now is really bad and obviously this is going to increase that. I am wondering when the City of Livonia, what their plan is to stop the commercialism? You just allocated a C-2 there at Haggerty and I can understand that but I think enough is enough for that commercialism on that northern part of Livonia. We have the Source Club and from what I understand Home Quarters will be going in there. We have Meijers. We have Target. A Builders Square is truly the last thing in the world that we need. We have so many empty commercial buildings sitting there, particularly on the south side of Eight Mile at Farmington. There has been an empty shell sitting there for two years. I would like to see some of these empty commercial buildings filled before we change some property once again, referring to the gentleman before me, for "short-term" profit. There was no guarantee to Mr. Johnson, I assume, whenever he zoned this PO and after that that the City of Livonia was going to give him a guarantee of any income on the property. Because if you are, then I will definitely buy some more property in Livonia if you are ,Air guaranteeing it because there are no guarantees and we all know that. I suggest to Mr. Johnson he just wait and sit on it and leave it the way it is because he is within a City of resident taxpayers and we are really tired of the commercialism and I think enough is enough. It would absolutely ruin the atmosphere having a Builders Square there. Thank you gentlemen. Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile: The first thing I would like to mention is I believe that there has been some mention made about how the Victor Corporation has the most at stake here and I question that. I believe it is the citizens of Livonia that are the ones that have the most at stake in this particular situation. There are four things that I would like to address. Some of them have already been spoken to but I would like to make a point of them. There was mention made about how times have changed and as a result the office market is not what it used to be. That is true and just as they have changed over the last ten years, I believe they are likely to change again over the next ten years. We have become more and more of a service type economy and that tends to be a little bit more office as opposed to industrial, etc. so I contend that perhaps things might change a little bit and become more positive for the office market in the future and we don't necessarily have to jump in this particular situation. As far as the commitment over the five years, unfortunately we are here right now dealing with a break in the original commitment that was made 13196 when this was begun back in 1983 and 1984 and we have to recognize that times can change and we could be back here dealing with another commitment but nevertheless another change. I am not sure about the commitment aspect and how much that is necessarily going to hold. A third point I would like to make is that one of the Sm. viable aspects I always found in the Victor Corporate Park was the setting itself and I do not believe that if you include a commercial enterprise into that corporate park that you are going to maintain the atmosphere that was intended to be there and as a result I think you are going to have a more difficult time filling these "future office complexes". If the intent is to really have an office corporate park, what you want to do is you want to make that the most attractive office corporate park that you possibly can. That is how you sell to your clients or your prospective clients and by including commercial, a lumber yard in effect, I don't think you are going to be achieving that end. The final thing is how this might impact on the Digital Corporation and whatever their plans might be. I am not sure whether they have done away with their property. I believe they still own it. We could conceivably be looking at the possible loss of Digital's intent based on their looking at the situation and determining whether or not they find this to be as attractive as they originally thought it might be. If they don't like it, what are they going to do with the property that they presently own? I am also a little bit concerned, in lieu of the conversation that went on before, about whether the Embassy Suites might try to get out of that area if they don't find it as attractive as they originally thought. Basically, what I am a little bit afraid of is if this happens, that the Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile will never be the Victor Parkway that was supposedly envisioned at an earlier date. Victor Parkway, although it won't be as bad as Ford Road in Canton, will begin to have commercial enterprise up and down wherever things aren't quite working out so let's fill it in and put things in here. That is a concern we all need to have. Dan Murphy, Senior Vice President and Branch Manager with Paine-Webber. I think I can lend a little perspective to maybe how some of the businesses that are looking for space in Livonia might approach this. Our present space is at Seven Mile Crossing and we have approximately 3500 square feet in that building. We have been looking all over the City of Livonia as a major corporation that has been in business since 1879, and we manage $135 billion of client assets. We did a study to find out where was the ideal location to put a new office. We put a new office up in 1991. We located in Livonia because we felt that corridor was the golden area. It was a tough time in the financial business, the market wasn't as high as it had been, and it took a major commitment of our firm to say let's make a commitment and go into Livonia. We now need to double our space. We started looking all over Livonia. Do we want to stay in Livonia or go to all this other space that is available in Southfield and Troy, etc. and we said yes we do want to stay in Livonia. We looked all over. We made a couple of offers for space in our existing building that then was leased out to other 13197 corporations. For instance, Amoco recently came in and took 10,000 square feet in our building to make our building fully leased at Seven Mile Crossing and they came from Chicago to go to this space at Seven Mile and I-275. We then looked all over for a space that was appropriate for a financial concern that had the right Sur appearance for our type of a corporation. We then went to Victor V. We found some space. We negotiated. We have a letter of intent to take space in the Victor V mainly because again we have a lot of our corporate people from New York and New Jersey come in, the hotel is right across the street and we have the restaurant that is now there. We liked the major plan that we saw of the new buildings that were going to go up in the future. There was only one space left in that building. You are starting to see the economy pick up and I think you are starting to see it in Livonia. I think it wasn't brought up but Livonia has a tighter office market. We looked all over for appropriate exit on ramps, off ramps, restaurants that you need to be able to take clients out, etc. We said we want to stay in Livonia. It bothers me and it concerns me that we are going to go there and see a Builders Square out our window. That does bother me. It is a beautiful area there and we like that whole environment there and that is why we made that decision to go there and I would be concerned if you went ahead and approved them to be in there. That is our perspective, again as a new tenant going for more space in the City of Livonia, doubling our size. and I am sure there are more people looking for space in Livonia. I know of another of our clients in Livonia who has been looking for 10,000 square feet and cannot find it. They have asked to subleaseour space at Seven Mile Crossing. That is the feeling I get in this market. `s Resident at 17555 Park: I apologize for my appearance but I was watching the proceedings at home and as a resident of the City of Livonia at 17555 Park and also a business owner that is located at 19500 Victor Parkway, I was appalled at what I saw being proposed to go in that parkway and I felt compelled to throw on the quickest thing I could to come here and state my extreme displeasure with what is being proposed. My business located at Victor V development two years ago at which time we were about the third tenant in the building. It was very underleased at that time. As of today's date the building is just about fully leased and it was my understanding that once that building was to be substantially leased they were to break ground across from us on a corresponding mirror image of our building. The promises that were made to me as a business owner locating our business in Victor V was that the Victor Parkway Corporate Park was going to be just that, a corporate park with luxury office space, a restaurant and a hotel that was going to attract professional organizations like myself. If you look at the tenant structure of Victor V you will see several large retail corporations as well as some smaller corporate headquarters like myself that were relying on luxury office space and not to be involved in a technology park or a park less than luxury office space. I am afraid that if the committee here approves a Builders Square, that you are going to diminish all of our aspirations and commitments that were made to us. Speaking 13198 as a resident of the City of Livonia and a frequent shopper of Builders Square, I go both between the one located at Twelve Oaks and the one on Plymouth Road, and being located at Six Mile and Wayne Road I see no necessity of having another one located within a few miles of my house. I have no difficulty spending ten minutes in the car to go to either one of the other Builders Squares. Mr. Johnson: I think what I would like to do is answer a few of the questions that have been raised. First of all, this is not a short-term solution. We built four-lane boulevard roads through the inside of the project and built the road out to Newburgh. We built the infrastructure 100%, landscaped all the entrance ways and maintained the parkway, maintained the entrance ways and maintained everything in an attempt to rent office space. We built a $350,000 pond in the front end and paid in excess of two million dollars in real estate taxes over the last nine years of being involved in this project. What we are here for today is in an effort to have an overall corporate park and business environment changed to a mixed use with the balance of office land that will still hold 600,000 square feet of office space, which will be the biggest office park still in the City of Livonia, which will occupy almost 30% of the total square footage of office space that exists in the City of Livonia. We are not the ones that changed the office market throughout the United States or the ones that changed the way business is being done throughout corporate America creating the downsizing of General Motors, IBM, Zerox, Ford Motor Company, etc. and the radical changes that have taken place in technology. I am not the one that invented hand-held phones and pocket computers and computers that are lap-top computers that didn't exist ten years ago and that radically affect the overall environment of corporate America and created downsizing and no longer needs, in many cases, 12-story or high-rise office buildings in this area. What we have attempted to do is a vision that was presented in the middle 80's that was anticipated at the time to take ten years to fill up and a design of what has happened. We have given every effort to do that. In that period of time the I-275 corridor was changed. What was going to be high-rise office buildings and a grand hotel by Mr. Jonna is now a Target and Source Club. The impact of what we are trying to do here is to take a premium-quality structure, single-user retailer that exists from a standpoint of aesthetics, materials and landscaping and all those things that have been agreed to in the front and a use that would be consistent with the rest of the park. We still have the balance of the land which buffers this. We feel it is an appropriate zoning situation. It is consistent with the commercial area here. In fact, this commercial zoning does run into the property. What was talked about looking down from the hotel into the retail area, the difference is it would be looking down at parking decks. From that standpoint we feel that is enhanced. We did a great deal of effort to cooperate and communicate with Embassy Suites. We sent site plans back and forth. We feel we acted responsibly and have come up with a sensitive design. 13199 Mr. Tent: Dave, you have heard two corporate executives here that were looking for space here in the City of Livonia. Victor V is already 100% leased? �,. Mr. Johnson: It is 87% leased. Mr. Tent: We are moving up the ladder as was presented here. Mr. Johnson: Let's talk about that for a minute. Mr. Hildreth is here. This is a building that was projected to rent for $21 a square foot. It was started in 1990. It is now 1994. It is not an economic success. It is to the credit of the Hillman Company that it is not one of the statistics that was listed on the slides and is being sold by the bank at $40 a square foot. The building cost $135 a square foot and is a commitment to the quality that we said we would deliver to the park as is the Builders Square II store, which there isn't a Builders Square II store anywhere that looks like this. The fact is I hope it is successful. I hope there is a market there because we have 600,000 more square feet to fill up. Mr. Tent: How far are you away from the second building? Mr. Johnson: There is no market place for a second building. The Victor V building was built to appeal to big users. In fact, it didn't appeal to big users because there weren't a number of big users and it is now filled with small users. Ray Hildreth, Vice President of Hillman Properties: I would like to pick up on Mr. Tent's comment that if you build it, they will come. That is "gay exactly the philosophy we try to use with our lenders. That is exactly the tactic we take. We promote Livonia as an outstanding market place. If you can stand only on the statistics of Livonia, it is a good place to build a building. Hillman has been prepared since the completion of Victor V to move ahead with Victor IV. The drawings are there but we cannot find the tenants to come to this building for this marketplace demands a product first. Most lending institutes will not forward the cash or make available the cash to build these speculative office buildings. Hillman has remained very successful. Unfortunately this market place, with the size tenants we are dealing with, we cannot build those kinds of buildings. We recently had an opportunity to do another 40,000 square feet, which we thought would be the anchor for Victor IV, because we wanted to do a 60,000 to 90,000 square foot building. Our lenders told us unless the building is 75% pre-leased and committed, we will not fund that project. There have been extraordinary sums of money by the Hillman Corporation in maintaining and keeping this building in place. We have struggled just as the Embassy Suites people have struggled. We are committed to stay there. We will find a way over the long term to build out the office but we will have to wait for the market to return. We are not just dealing with the Livonia market. We have to deal with Detroit and Detroit holds the stigma. The minute we can find a lender, we will be back and we will move ahead with Victor IV. That is our commitment to Dave and that is our commitment to the City. 13200 Mr. Tent: I just heard tonight the market is beginning to pick up. There were some banking people here who indicated they were beginning to lend money. Mr. Hildreth: We have talked to seven regional banks in this area and we can't get money. Cameron Piggitt of Dykema-Gossett: I am in charge of real estate. First of all I would like to give my compliments to Mr. Bromberg. He gave a very nice speech. He has only been retained in the last week or so and they don't know some of the history of this project. I have been involved on behalf of David Johnson, my good friend, and Victor from the beginning. First of all let me correct a mis-impression. There have been discussions at the principal level, not with Mr. Bromberg's office, with regard to the possible rezoning for several months. This is not a surprise. Number two, there is the impression left that some promises have been made way back when the hotel was built that there would be restrictions on the property to the size of the hotel. I can tell you that was absolutely not the case. The closing documents say there were no negative reciprocal easements. There were discussions during some very contentious negotiations over a very extended period of time whereby Mr. Bromberg's now client attempted to impose those restrictions and they were resisted. Our position has always been with City Council what will happen will be market driven. Finally, I have heard some discussions about the financing of speculative office buildings. We have the largest real estate practice of anybody in the state. I am involved in this business every day. I think there is almost no financing for speculative office buildings going on. I ,` certainly haven't seen any for a long, long period of time. I think there are some positive signs. Companies like Paine-Webber and others are starting to expand but before you can package those size tenants together, there are going to be many years to get the financing to put up that sort of a building. The industry has seen a big change. The market has changed. It is not just the banks. It is the insurance companies. It is across the board. They are all trying to get real estate back. When you think about the overview of what is happening here tonight, this is not a temporary economic crisis. This is not something that a year or two from now is going to change. This is something that will take many, many years before 12-story office buildings are going to be popular. I would like to say it is only short term. That is not going to be the case. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Johnson, I have a question to ask you. Number one, I want to commend you. At least you came in here and asked for a rezoning and you came in with a building, telling us what the tenant is going to be. In the previous case, we just gave a rezoning to somebody who wouldn't tell us what is going in there. Consequently, anything can go in there as long it is a permitted use in the C-2 district, which I think is wrong. Getting back to Kmart. My understanding from the Kmart representative, you are going to get a 25-year lease, which means he is obligated to you for rent for 25 years. Knowing the Kmart and how they operate, the parent company and I assume Builders Square operates the same way, 13201 after ten years if the parent company doesn't feel that Builders Square is not making the bottom line profit they feel should be generated at this location, they are not going to stay. They are going to close down the store and move out and that doesn't hurt ,` you because you have a 25-year lease but it hurts the City of Livonia and its residents that live here. My question to you sir is if they move out after 10 to 15 years, you have a 110,000 square foot building along a nice parkway. What can that building be used for? Mr. Johnson: We teamed up with Ramco-Gershenson, who are leading retailers, in conjunction with Kmart on this. Why was such a crucial partnership made a requirement before we came to you and before we had a deal with them and the only contingency in our deal with them is the zoning? There is no other contingency of any nature whatsoever. The critical nature of the proposal was to get a building that was consistent with CBX Fox across the street and had the ability to be used in a similar type situation. Mr. LaPine: The point is you have a C-2 classification, you could bring anything you want in if Builders Square is not successful and that is the problem I have. Mr. Johnson: We did not come in to ask for blanket C-2 zoning. We came in with a specific use with a flagship store, which would normally sit on 11 acres using 15.6 acres with heavy landscaping commitments all the way around. Mr. LaPine: But you have the C-2 zoning then. You have to have the C-2 zoning to build the Builders Square. Once you have C-2 zoning and Builders Square should go under, I hope they never do, you can build anything you want in there as long as it meets the C-2 zoning under the ordinance. Mr. Simons: Let me address this from a retail perspective. What you have here is a prime piece of retail location. Mr. LaPine: We have a difference of agreement. I don't think it is the right location for that. You know your business but to me this is off the beaten path, in my opinion. Mr. Johnson: The path is I-275. The path from day one of what we are trying to do is the front yard, which is I-275. Mr. Simons: Not withstanding, you have a very good piece of real estate here location wise. While we made a long-term commitment here I think you can rest assured if for whatever reason, and we don't anticipate a reason at all, an excellent piece of real estate will recycle itself for another large, successful retail user as has been demonstrated across the street with the retail opportunities over there. I think what you are looking at is not only an economic basis for this piece of property but also because of its locational features you will have another user there and not an empty building. 13202 Mr. LaPine: Let me give you an example. At a good location in Livonia at Seven Mile and Middlebelt Road we had a Joshua Door Furniture Store back in the 70's when the big furniture outlets were built. They went under. Ever since that store went under we have had nothing but stores running through it left and right and it is a good location. We can't keep anything there. We had Marshall's Department Store. They pulled out. Half of the stores in that whole center are empty and have been empty for years so that is not really a good argument, a good location. Mr. Johnson: What we are talking about here is the Kmart Corporation which is the second largest retailer in the United States and what we have is a secure product, a specific identified use with the highest quality exterior. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Johnson, I don't disagree with you. If you get your rezoning I think if I had to have someone in there, I think you have a good quality organization and the type of building you are going to build is a beautiful building, but the question is do we need it in the City of Livonia? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-12-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-5-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-1-19 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment W. Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P0, PO III and C-4III to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 93-12-1-19 be denied for the following reasons: 1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan designation of Office. 2) That there is no demonstrated need for uses permitted by the proposed C-2 zoning district. 3) That the Victor Corporate Park road system was not designed to accommodate the commercial traffic generated by uses permitted in the C-2 zoning district. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses and zoning districts in the area. 5) That the City is currently well served with uses permitted by the C-2 zoning district in this general area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 13203 Mr. McCann: I came here tonight trying to keep as open a mind as I possibly could. Mr. Johnson brought tremendous development to the City of Livonia, something he believed in. I met with him before this meeting tonight and went over it. I tried to keep an open mind but ro,,,, the problem is times have changed. We are not going to be able to get the 12-story user like he wanted. We need to be able to change the focus of where we are going with this but we have to not be in a hurry. As was said tonight when you own a piece of property, sometimes you have to take some rest with it too and you can't develop it as quickly as you would like. I don't think that Builders Square is the right type of image going into a corporate park. I don't know what the needs are over the next ten years. As you have stated the last ten years brought tremendous change. I told you the other day I felt the I-275/I-96 corridor in the next ten years is going to be the prime area in the metro area. I think we are going to see a lot of development coming here. It could be incorporated within the corporate park and be good neighbors for the users that are already there. It is well designed. You have done an excellent job in what you have done so far but I am going to have to vote against it because I don't think that type of commercial use at this point is appropriate. Mr. Tent: The reason I made the denying motion, nothing against the Victor Parkway or the developer. Mr. Johnson has done a tremendous job there. I would like to see it succeed but in this case I have to agree with Mr.McCann about the use of the land for this particular function. Therefore, I want to encourage you to continue on with what you have done in the City. Things will be picking up but I too cannot support this particular development. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Johnson: I would like to ask the Commission to waive the 7-day waiting period. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #1-6-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 93-12-1-19 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P0, PO III and C-III to C-2. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Tent ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13204 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-2-27 by DeMattia & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. 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 they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their office has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner or his representative here? Oz Wagner, Architect with DeMattia & Associates, 45501 Elm Street, Plymouth: We are here this evening to talk about an addition to Memorial Church of Christ. The church itself has been a member of the City of Livonia since 1970. Since that time it has found itself in a growth period where its membership has increased to 425 members and they now find their current facility, which is approximately 22,000 square feet, is too small and they need to expand their current operation. The proposal in front of you today is a fellowship hall addition, something that is very much needed. With the way they function this space is educational space that is used for bible study classes that run concurrently on Sundays during their worship service. Their current worship space seats 366 people. We are not planning on expanding that. This addition is strictly education space. What I would like to do is just spend some time here looking at the site plan. (He presented the site plan to the Commissioners and audience) We did have a meeting with some of the homeowners just before Thanksgiving where we invited all the adjacent homeowners to a very informal meeting at the church to introduce the project to them and see how they felt about it. At that time there weren't any major objections other than some lighting concerns, actually asking for some more lighting and some drainage problems but nothing of any real major concerns from their point of view. Again, out of the 20 or so property owners there were eight or so in attendance. We did not have a complete majority. What we did was as we have been developing this parcel we have been trying to be very sensitive to the fact that we had residential property neighboring us. On the east end are all rear yards. People look out through the yards at the current development that is there and the future development that we are proposing now. The same thing happens here on the south side. We tried, as best we can, to leave perimeter bumper space. We have 40 feet in this area along the east side. We have saved some of the mature vegetation that is there. There was quite a bit of it along the property line. We are intending to leave that and then supplement it with additional plant material. (He pointed out some additional landscaping they would be adding) At the south side we 13205 have nine feet or so from here to the edge of the parking. We will leave that as an existing condition the way it is with some of the large trees that are there. To the west there is one residence here. This resident owns everything here. It is very undeveloped. Just a series of heavy woods there. That is what we are proposing at the moment. Parking currently on the property is around 122. This is showing 295. Lighting, at least as proposed right now, the existing building has some lighting attached to it in front. There are a couple of poles in the back. It is not a very well lit parcel at the moment. What we are proposing is at least a half a dozen light poles in these locations to act as security lights to light it enough to see if there is anybody out there. There will also be some additional lighting at the entrance. Mr. Alanskas: Where is the handicap parking spaces and how many do you have? Mr. Wagner: (He pointed out the area on the site plan). We will have ten handicap spaces. Mr. Tent: Mr. Wagner, the lights you say you are going to have, are they on the drawings? Mr. Wagner: Yes. (Mr. Wagner presented the floor plan) Mr. Wagner: They have no intent to lease this out. It is strictly for their own use. The question might come up what about wedding receptions. I got some information from the minister this evening. They don't have more than two to three wedding receptions here in a year. The reason for that is there is no dancing allowed, no alcohol allowed. All you might have would be a gathering after some wedding where they might serve them brunch. Two to three a year is all they have now and that is all they expect to have. (Mr. Wagner presented the building elevation plans) Mr. Wagner: The current facility is about 23 feet to the peak. Our highest point is 33 feet. We are allowed 35 feet. Mr. Alanskas: For the new unit where are the air conditioning units going to be? Mr. Wagner: Because of the roof slope it allows them to be put in these spaces around the perimeter so we get this little triangular attic space. They are all going to be located around the building in that attic space. They will be hidden. Karen Makled, 15069 Yale: I would like to submit a petition opposing this. That is signed by a majority of the homeowners that are involved in this. First of all I would like to say I believe my backyard is an extension of my home. I don't know if you are aware that Yale is a very busy street. We have a lot of cars going through to the cul-de-sac at the back. We spend a lot of time in our backyard and 13206 I just feel that I might as well be living on Five Mile Road. I am going to see parking lots. I am going to see more activity. I am going to have three lights behind and I oppose this greatly. +4111. Mr. Morrow: Let me just read what the petition says. I reads the undersigned property owners are unequivocally opposed to the construction requested in Petition 93-11-1-27. Our objections are deep and firm to every request of the proposed petition, and there is no possible alteration to it to which we would agree. We request that Petition 93-11-1-27 be denied. There are about 22 signatures on it. We will make this a part of the record. Lisa Kujawa, 14869 Park: First of all I never received any notice prior to this week that anything was going on behind us. I saw surveyors out there last summer. I went out and asked them what was going on and and that was the only information I ever got. My house faces directly south of the proposed parking lot. I will have nothing but cars pulling into the parking area with headlights shining directly into my family room and my kitchen because I live in a tri-level. We have enough activity there with non-church hours as it is. If you propose to increase the amount of parking lot, the kids can come closer to my house. I have found empty beer bottles back there, partying going on as it is and now it will come closer to my house and that is a concern to me as a homeowner. Resale value, what does this do to my house? If I want to sell my house, my house is looking at a parking lot behind me. I think it is going to decrease my property value. These are all big concerns for all of us. We have enjoyed looking at just the nice land behind us. Not that they don't have the right to build there but ‘ttler this will only be a big eyesore. Street lights, we have repeatedly rejected street lights in our area. They are going to be putting all these big parking lots out there in the back of us. We are going to have nothing but lights shining down on us. They are in church three times a week and all these lights shining on us in my home which will reduce my privacy. These are all big concerns for all of us on the south side because we all face the back end of where they are going to be parking. David Rohde, 15081 Yale: My backyard, of course, also faces the project. I too feel that my yard is an extension of my home. I have re-mortgaged my home, in fact, and spent a considerable amount of money to develop my backyard. With the permission of the Chairman I have a few photographs of my yard and what I have done to it. (He presented his photos to the Commission) Through my re-mortgage and with a lot of effort I have spent in excess of $50,000 putting in a pool and having a private place where I hope to enjoy my remaining years. I am a resident of Livonia in that home since it was built in 1960. I don't want a parking lot behind me. I don't want lights, which I believe will be on 20-foot towers immediately lighting up this whole secluded area. I am very much opposed to the traffic. Yale is an extremely busy street because it is the only through street that services Five Mile Road down to Schoolcraft. When I leave my home and go to Five Mile Road, we have to wait sometimes as much as 7, 8, 9, 10 minutes to get out 13207 on Five Mile Road because of the traffic. There is simply a stop street there. There is no light. I feel the additional parking sounds like it is going to be doubled or more. When the church is going to be having activities, it certainly is going to hinder • traffic leaving Yale trying to get out on Five Mile Road. I feel this also will deteriorate the value of my home and my property. John Sparkman, 15057 Yale: One of my major concerns is I heard the extensive use of Mr. Clark's name here tonight. I assume he is still a City engineer and the statements I am going to make he can confirm if they still have the records there of the extensive damages since 1970 with the building of that church that I have incurred on my property. The gentleman that just sat down, on the night of the meeting at the church building, he made me a promise sometime ago, I don't recall the exact date. There was installation of a catch basin that was connected into the City catch basin, the storm sewer on the southwest corner of my property. I was informed that the insurance company had paid me off that night and this is untrue. I have never been compensated for any of the damages incurred by my property from that church. I have had so many problems with flooding. I have had my basement repaired three times from leaks. If you look up your City records, you will find information on the flooding in that area. Because of the elevation you are sitting higher. I am the lowest person in that subdivision. In the southwest corner is the catch basin and my problem is how can we be assured this is not going to occur again because by giving them permission to come across my property to put a catch basin in the property behind me to ensure the drainage, up until this time I have incurred expenses of installing seep sewers between my house and the house on the north side of me. The City allowed me to connect that seep sewer between our houses into the City storm �r. sewer and the street. As a matter of fact, they made the connection under the sidewalk from my yard to the catch basin. Upon the completion of the installation of that sewer they put in back there they were supposed to have taken care of all the expense of putting my property back in order. My fence was left down in two separate places. The posts were uprooted. I think probably everyone here is aware that at one time our property w as adump. There was garbage strewn all over my backyard. had to buy topsoil. I had to buy sod. One time I had to resod my backyard and I am going to be strongly opposed to this. I could go on and on but the night is getting on so I am going to be sstrongly lynsel. opposed to this that if it is approved, am going to seek John Deckert, 14893 Park: I am on the southeast corner of the church. I have about 120 feet that borders them. I bought that property because of the openness of the area and I am going to end up with 30 feet of parking lot that borders my property. I like to look at stars at night. I might as well forget that. I am going to hear traffic instead of birds. My view is going to be a big building, which is going to be a lot bigger than the one that is there now, a lot taller. I am not going to be able to relax in my backyard. The traffic and the noise is going to hinder me. I am sure my property value is going to go down. As it is now someone would be happy to 13208 buy it. I have an extended backyard. Something that does bother me is their proposal to double the size of the parking lot. They said the sanctuary is not going to change. It is not going to get any bigger. The say the addition is for educating the children. Children don't drive. Why do you need to double the size of the parking lot if you are not increasing the size of the sanctuary unless you are anticipating renting that structure out. I oppose it strongly. Mrs. Rosta, 15153 Yale: I am the fourth house off Five Mile so I am at the beginning of the construction. Everyone else that has been up here has double lots. I have a single lot so when I am outside, the first thing I will see will be cars. I will get all the traffic. from the new main entrance. I have kids that like to play in the backyard. It is not going to be comfortable. They were talking about lighting. There is a church behind the houses across the street from me that lust put up lights. My whole front yard is all lit up from this light. I don't want my whole backyard lit up from these lights too. With the center being bigger they may have more weddings and have more functions. The kids are loud. They have buses. Right now at ten and eleven o'clock at night there are kids out there and it is noisy. I have a colonial and all the noise travels up. How many more groups are they going to have that I am going to have to put up with? Dennis Brennan, 14905 Park: I am south of the church property. The first thing I want to say is the gentleman stated notices were given for the meeting at the church. I found the notice jammed in my front door at six o'clock the night they held the meeting. It wasn't enough time for anybody to have time to prepare for anything except go up Nur there and see what they were going to do. There was no advance notice of the meeting that they held for the neighbors and now they are claiming that the people aren't opposed. I think it is clear that everybody here is opposed to this. When I bought my house in 1988, the reason I bought that house and I paid a premium price for it was because of the privacy of the backyard area. I like the streets because there are no street lights. I like the area the way it is. If they put up the lights in the backyard, I am going to be looking at a constant glare. I won't be able to view the stars with my neighbor and all those type of things. Tonight before I came here there was a meeting up at the church apparently, and it is quite a distance away from my house, and yet constantly I had lights shining into my family room as they pulled around the back of the. building. They are now going to double the size of the building and then put the parking lot behind that which means I have the cars that much closer which means the lights are going to be that much brighter shining into my house. Also, the current building they say is 23 feet and they are going up to 33 feet. That is a big difference. Currently as I look out the back I can see the church. If you raise that ceiling ten feet and then bring it closer to my house, I have lost my whole skyline. There is no need for this to go in there. The people in the area are opposed to it. I will just incorporate the argument of everybody else. I am very strongly opposed to this. 13209 Jerry Perkins, 15129 Yale: My property is one of the shorter lots and it abuts the property of the church. I agree with everything that has been stated here by the other people. I would like to bring out a couple of points that may or may not be clear. The first view of the property of the church, it is not a rectangular property Sum. section. You see a section that abuts out on the south side. That was not originally church property. They have recently procured that from a private property owner. That means all of the people including our property, we had a buffer. We had a long lot that separated us from the church parking lot. They have just purchased that property and moved it forward. That means the people who bought the property, even considering the rights of the church, never expected that the church would be moved across and right up to their backyard. It has been alluded to but I would like to bring out in more detail that the property of the church is significantly higher than the property all along the area in which they are expanding on Yale. That means all the gasoline, oil, anti-freeze and runoff from that parking lot is going to be coming down into our backyard and homes. This is where we live. This is where we raise our children. On a personal note, I have a teenager who attends the youth group at St. Colettes and I would commend St. Colettes on the closeness which they control their youth groups. Nevertheless, when they have activities at that church in their activity center, there is noise, there is speeding, and the City of Livonia provides police security and I would fully expect the City of Livonia would have to provide security in this case as well. They are asking for almost a 100% more in parking than what the structure requires. I wonder what is the compelling reason for this committee to approve this petition. We are the people who pay taxes in this area not the church and we pay many thousands of dollars for that property. I ask this Commission to exercise its fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Livonia and to protect our rights. Mary Ann Rhode, 15081 Yale: I am married to the man who has the best-looking yard in town. They did a good job but what he forgot to tell you is that two sides of our yard will be covered by a parking lot. They are going to come towards us towards the south and they are going to come towards us towards the east and I go out there and that is my serenity. I go out for a swim or to take my grandchildren out there and sometimes for morning tea and I don't want to see a car pull up on the side of me and pull up on the back of me and I almost want to beg you not to let this pass. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wagner, before I close the public hearing do you have any additional comments? Mr. Wagner: I would like to try to address some of the neighbors' concerns. I would also like Mr. Robert Porter, who is Chairman of the Building Committee, to address some of the other concerns that were brought up this evening. I would like to start with site lighting. There seems to be a big concern about the amount of lighting. There is no intent on the church's behalf to make this a lit parking lot like a shopping mall parking lot. We have six poles in this area that are there really for security reasons in case kids are back there drinking on the weekends. That is what they are there for. 13210 If we need to, they are on photo-control. They can be sensed to come on in the evening when it is dark and those controls can be overridden so they go off at a certain time of the night if they want it dark but I wouldn't want it dark. I live, myself, in Plymouth and I have a school behind me. I don't want it dark. I Nte., want to be able to see. This is not a heavily-lit site. If you are concerned about the light level, visit the Ford Child-Care Center on Ann Arbor Road between I-275 and Newburgh. It is the same type of lighting. This isn't a highly lit site. Another issue was storm drains. In the past when this project was developed you can see Mr. Sparkman has had some serious problems. The way this site currently drains, the high point goes to the back. All of that is here to drain out at the moment. What we are proposing is a complete underground storm sewer system that takes all the runoff from all the hard-surfaced areas, takes them to an underground system. We have a series of catch basins here on this side running together. You heard from the Engineering review that they don't have any major concerns at this point. We are controlling the storm drainage. We are going to improve what is there, which is minimal. I would like Mr. Porter to talk about how the church operates, hours of operation, some of the things like when and the type of activities that will happen. Mr. Tent: How can you control the headlights from beaming in to the residences on either side? Mr. Wagner: Right now the only thing you can do would be to plant plant materials around the whole thing. Mr. Tent: Where I am coming from is the Wards Church up at Six Mile and Farmington Road. When they built that church there they had a tremendous problem with the neighbors abutting the property with headlights shining into their windows. We heard about that constantly and I see the same thing here where you are going to have cars pulling into the parking lot and there is going to be lights shining on those homes. How are you going to control that? Mr. Wagner: Right now other than screening the whole perimeter of the parking area there is no way to control it. Bob Porter: I am the Building Committee Chairman for Memorial Church Christ. I have gone there for approximately 33 years. I am an architect as well and very interested in the project. One of the concerns was parking, the number of spaces. What you need with our congregation as opposed to perhaps some other ones, we have a dual worship bible school. That constitutes bible school attendance as well as church happening simultaneously. There are times within that transition where we have perhaps anywhere from 25 to 50 cars in the parking lot during that transition time. That additional parking that is there is to handle that overflow. Twenty-five minutes after starting time from one service to the next the majority, perhaps 50, of those spaces will be vacated. But at this point we have to accommodate those numbers. One of the concerns is 295. We presently have approximately 122. We are utilizing about a.. 13211 150. They are parking in the horseshoe in front of the building so actually we are accommodating approximately 150 spaces but we are increasing it to the maximum of 295. The thought is a good majority of the people in the congregation are elderly and believe you me they are concerned with the amount of parking space. More Sow than likely what we would like to do is in the event we don't have to go that far, what we wanted to present today would be the maximum that we would anticipate based on what we perceive as being required. One of the concerns, I believe, as well was that of buses. The church owns not one bus. We have a van, a 15-passenger van. The intent of the multi purpose room, that will be used for basketball, volleyball, banquets. Our existing facility has a social hall that accommodates approximately 180 to 200 people. We have two to three dinners a year where we would get as much as 250 to 300 people and the thought is to utilize that space for banquets. Typically they are during the day in the afternoon or early evening. We don't have drinking at the facility and in most cases most functions will be done by 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. Mr. McCann: There are a couple of things with this petition. Number one, the people have many, many, legitimate concerns in regard to this proposal. However, with private property you have the right to develop it. You can't expect someone to own property and pay taxes on it and keep it as park land for the people in the back. However, we as the Planning Commission do have the duty to try to limit the impact that property will have on its neighbors. Therefore, I am going to recommend that we table this for further study to look at the possibility of berms, reduce the lighting, reduce the amount of parking, to try to lessen the impact as much as possible on the neighbors but allow the rights of ownership for New the church and its people and hopefully come up with a project everyone can live with. Therefore I recommend that we table this until the meeting of February 1st. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-2-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #1-7-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1993 on Petition 93-11-2-27 by DeMattia & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 93-11-2-27 until the study meeting of February 1, 1994. 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. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. N.. 13212 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-2-28 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc, requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant with a drive-up window on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. "or 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 they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to the site plan as submitted. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner present? Mark Drane: I am an architect with T. Rogvoy & Associates, 6735 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills. I am representing Boston Chicken. I am sure most of you are familiar with the Boston Chicken concept. What we are proposing at this site is a bit different than what you have seen. We are actually having seating inside the restaurant and we are also proposing a drive-thru. We are a small outlot in front of a fairly large shopping center. We are proposing to share parking on that shopping center and if there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Mr, Morrow: Did you come with a site plan tonight? (Mr. Drane presented the site plans) Mr. Tent: Can you go over the signage that you are proposing for the building? Is that part of your proposal now? Mr. Drane: We are proposing one ground sign. Mr. Tent: Is that a call-back? Mr. Nagy: Yes they have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Tent: What about the roof-top mechanical units? How are you going to shield them? Mr. Drane: We have raised the parapet. You will not see the units. Mr. Alanskas: Mark, with this proposal what percent of business do you think will he at the drive-in window? Mr. Drane: We have opened a test market in Plymouth on Ann Arbor Road. We are doing about 15% of our business, which is opposed to other fast-food restaurants which do 50% to 55% drive-thru business. 13213 Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have an exit and entrance so people can't come the wrong way off the street? Mr. Drane: This is a narrow throat here for exiting only. It would be clearly marked. \r. Mr. Alanskas: One way only? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Looking at your plan here to enter the restaurant to go to the drive-in window you have to enter from the far north driveway, which is closest to Seven Mile. Is that correct? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Have you been out there between three and six o'clock? What happens when people are trying to make a left hand turn on Seven Mile. It is going to create. a problem. It will be the same problem we have at Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. My question is I am curious about two things. Are you telling me this is the second drive-thru Boston Chicken you have in the metropolitan Detroit area? Mr. Drane: We have opened one in Clarkston, Michigan and the drive-thru in Plymouth. They are the only two drive-thrus. Mr. LaPine: Isn't it true that the biggest majority of your business is take home? Sm. Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That makes me believe the biggest majority of your business, most people are going to call up and order and are going to go through that drive-thru. Isn't that true? Mr. Drane: People don't call in orders. Mr. LaPine: If that is true, what do you do drive around and wait for your orders and you show on your plan you only have a backup for six vehicles. Mark Thomas, BC of Detroit, 315 S. Woodward, Royal Oak: Today what has been happening, as Mark said we have one open in Plymouth that we are actually using the drive-thru. Our experience is 15% of our business is going through the drive-thru. It is true and even moreso in our Plymouth store that the majority of our business is take out. We have probably 13 to 20 seats in the Plymouth store so again two-thirds of our business is take out. Our concept is such that visually we have the deli cases with our food displayed, with our hot food and our cold food, which change seasonally. It is much more convenient for the customer to come in and be able to view the product and see what they want and we assemble it very quickly and they are in and out in three, four or five minutes even 13214 with a line. We have experienced at Plymouth from the time you are at the order board to the time your order is actually assembled and out about two to two and a half minutes. Again, the business is held at 15% only through the drive-thru. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me the drive-thru is similar to the Rally's hamburger where you drive around and there is a menu up there and you call in and then you drive up to the window and pick up your order and it only takes two minutes? Mr. Thomas: It only takes two to two and a half minutes from the time you order. We are actually able to get people in and out quicker than the typical fast feeder because our product is already prepared and from the time of order it only needs to be assembled. Mr. LaPine: At this location you show six cars you could stack and I could conceivably see one more car you could stack before you get into the driveway where you have parking. That is the maximum number of cars that would be there lined up for the drive-thru? Mr. Thomas: I don't know that we will end up stacking that many cars based upon today's volume of drive-thru business and the quickness which we are able to get the people's orders out. Mr. Drane: I would also like to address Mr. LaPine's concern about left-hand turns into the site. Because the site is inter-connected, I think it is going to be learned by the customer that they can come in. at any of these other points throughout the shopping center and still. circulate around to the drive-thru. We also think most of our customers will park here because it is very close to the front `n door, which is the least used parking of the shopping center. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, concerning the signage, if it goes to ZBA, it will have to come back to us? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Drane: Maybe I could get a clarification. We thought the package conformed to the sign ordinance. I thought we were allowed one sign in front and we are also proposing a monument sign. We believed that met the zoning ordinance. Mr. Nagy: You are over. You have two signs. The one on the canopy, which is also considered a sign. For those reasons you are over. Mr. Alanskas: I think the biggest concern we did have was in regards to the traffic problems and parking but being you had that back wall taken down and opened to the back parking lot, people can learn to come in various ways which will help alleviate the congestion and I think it will work out pretty well. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr> Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on. Petition 93-12-2-28 closed. 13215 On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was 111-8-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-2-28 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant with a 'Saw drive-up window on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-12-2-28 be approved subject to variances being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a deficient front yard and deficient off-street parking and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 11-18-93 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevations marked Sheet 6 dated 11-18-93 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. Architects (not including any signage), which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 11-18-93 prepared by Ralph L. Nunez, Landscape Architect is hereby approved and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general. waiver use standards and requirements as modified by the Zoning '141111. Board of Appeals as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 11543. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed use will provide an additional commercial service which will draw customers to the adjacent shopping center. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 043, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson, Frandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-2-29 by Richard Bame requesting waiver use approval to allow outdoor storage of contractor's materials and equipment on property located on the west side of Beatrice between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the `'� Northeast 1/4 of Section 2. 13216 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 `nw received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the proposed site plan does not indicate the following required elements: a) A protective wall along the West and South property lines where this property abuts property zoned residential. b) A fence on the other two sides of the property enclosing the storage lot. Please note that the fence may NOT be installed in the required 50' front yard setback. c) a 20' greenbelt screening the stored materials from the adjoining residential property. d) Pavement (at least the areas proposed to be used for driveways and vehicle parking). They state the omission of any of these elements will require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their office has no objections to this site plan as submitted. This department also received a letter from Myron Boksha of M. C. Carbide Tool Company stating he wishes to express his objection to the proposed petition. He states as owner of lot #102, 29811 Eight Mile Road they have a common lot line on his south border. He cannot imagine any outdoor storage of equipment or materials being in accordance with our beautification program of Eight Mile Rd-North Livonia Area. He has invested over $20,000.00 in landscaping, paving and site improvements. His tenant. American Speedy Printing, more than doubled that amount at the City's itemw demands that North Livonia must upgrade its look. He ends by stating he would not appreciate any outdoor storage anywhere near his property after the efforts of himself and his tenant. We have also received a letter from Elizabeth M. Falk who indicates backyards are great places to have cookouts, lie in the sun, and let your children run, but not in my backyard. My backyard is right next to all of my neighbor's leftover industrial equipment. He owns the empty lot next door and stores all of his leftover material along the fenceless property line. This material makes my backyard a very unsafe place for my child to play. Not only a neighborhood eyesore, but a breeding ground for mice and other small animals. The leftover materials continue to stay despite my many discussions to persuade my neighbor to clean up. She goes on to say this poses a potential hazard for children that wander into that area and the leftover equipment site is the perfect breeding ground for small animals such as mice, rats, raccoons and skunks. Despite my numerous talks to persuade my neighbor to clean up the mess remains. She would love for the site to be cleaned up immediately so some day her backyard will be a great place to have cookouts, lie in the sun and let her children run. Similarly we have another letter from Livonia residents Tohnni and Louis Giannotti of 20425 Beatrice stating they are submitting a 13217 letter in their absence. They feel that allowing this man to turn this lot into a storage area would be disastrous! ! ! The lot is already an eyesore and a dangerous area. They ask please do not allow our neighborhood to be ruined. We all have small children on this block and would like to see this area cleaned up. We all work ., hard to try to keep our yards clean and tidy. This lot owner is a resident further south of our street. I wonder how he would feel if this was next door to his house. Lastly, we have received a letter from Judy Bruce stating she is a resident of 20507 Beatrice. Not only would she like to see the miscellaneous waste cleaned up she does not want to see this lot turned into a material storage lot. She states she has three young children and this waste piled up creates a dangerous "playground". It is an accident waiting to happen. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your reasons for this request. Ted Berlinghof, the architect from Detroit, Michigan and Richard Bame, 20251 Beatrice, Livonia: Mr. Berlinghof: Richard is the owner of this property. This piece of property is zoned M-1 industrial. Mr. Bame has a construction company. He would like to utilize his lot to park his two construction vehicles and store some of his construction materials. These materials will be new construction materials not left over materials, no garbage, no trash containers and no raccoons or skunks. The intention is to be able to utilize his lot for storing his vehicles. We are not talking about earth movers. We are not talking about graders. We \r. have a three cubic yard dump truck and a flatbed truck which is a one-ton truck. This is slightly larger than a pickup truck. We take exception to the people who say that this is an unsighly lot with eyesores. I submitted a sketch to the City of Livonia showing the lot heavily landscaped presently. It has been well maintained by Mr. Bame. There is a nine-foot high lilac hedge along the rear of the lot, along the north of the lot, which is facing the Speedy Printing. There is a nine-foot high row of bushes and trees and even on the east elevation, which is right on Beatrice Street we have a seven foot high set of bushes. We have a photograph here we would like to submit. Mr. Morrow: You heard Inspection indicate that two of your property lines require a masonry wall to shield yourself from the residential. You also heard that you would be precluded from building any sort of a fence along the front yard. How does your client feel about that before we even get into whether or not he wants to pursue this? Mr. Bame: I was in front of the board three to four years ago to put up a building there. I wanted a five-foot variance and was turned down. As far as putting a wall there, I can do that. I have to have some place to park my trucks. I bought that property to use it. The people that are making a complaint in the back when they bought in there that property was industrial. They had it rezoned to residential. Now they want everyone to move out. They knew it was `"r' industrial when they moved in there. 13218 Mr. Morrow: We are not disputing your current zoning. You are looking for a waiver, which is a more intense use than what the original industrial was for. If you wanted to go in there with an industrial use, I suppose you could go right ahead and do it. That is where we are coming from so that line of argument, we are not disputing the industrial portion, it is only you are intensifying the use. Mr.Berlinghof: When we did try to submit for an industrial building on this site it was noted to us that Livonia requires a certain number of square footage for an industrial site and that lot, which is zoned industrial, was too small. After the rear yard and the side yard and the front yard setbacks were allotted we had about a 15 x 45 foot building, which is an unbuildable or unusable space and it was turned down when we asked for a small variance so we were not able to pursue that project back then. Mr. Bame would simply like a place to put his vehicles and new construction materials. He says he would be willing to put in screen walls and fences. We would be happy to modify the plan for that. Mr. Morrow: There was something about the driveways. How did that read John? Mr. Nagy: The plan did not indicate any pavement. The areas proposed to be used for driveways and vehicle parking were supposed to be paved. Mr. Morrow: So you are indicating that should this be approved you would be prepared to work with Inspection to bring the lot up to speed. I don't know how you will secure your property. You would not be allowed to put a fence on your front yard. That is another matter. We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone present wishing to speak for or against this petition. Catherine Sullivan: I am Treasurer of the North-Central Livonia Civic Association and I live at 20285 Milburn. I got the letter from the Planning Commission and I went to the people on Beatrice and they were opposed to this waiver use of a outdoor storage. We have been trying right along to get rid of outdoor storage and also to have the wall where the industrial line meets the residential line. It is supposed to be compulsory to have a wall. Mr. Tent: Catherine, I know you have been very effective in your organization and you have done a great job in keeping things looking beautiful out in that area. You heard the comments the Inspection Department made. If this operation were to go ahead and put up a protective wall and landscaped it the way it was intended to shield whatever they are doing and clean up that area and put cement in, etc. would that satisfy the requirements of what you are looking at because this is industrial? Would that satisfy you or are you completely opposed to this? Mrs. Sullivan: We have been trying to get rid of the outdoor storage but it is supposed to be compulsory for that wall to be put up between residential and industrial. The outdoor storage isn't very nice and we have been trying to keep that Eight Mile Road area nice. 13219 Mr. Tent: You have been doing a great job. Jerry Sisco, 20490 Louise: I own Lots 106 and 107. Lot 106 backs up to the lot in question. I bought my house in 1989. In January of 1990 I got a violation notice from the City for storing fire wood on the ground and having a rat wall without a shed so I dismantled the rat wall and elevated the fire wood. One of the main reasons I did it is I figured if I took care of the violations I had maybe I could get after the City to get Lot 101 cleaned up. In March 1980 I talked to a Mr. Klee from the Inspection Department. He told me he was aware of the problem and trying to get the lot cleaned up. Over the years from time to time I have called the Inspection Department to get something done about getting that lot cleaned up. In April of last year I took pictures and took them into Inspection to show them what the lot looked like. I have the same pictures here if you would like to look at them. I am against this petition for three reasons. I don't think the lot is big enough for storing materials and equipment. Second of all, I am in the building trades myself. I have worked in the building trades for the past 20 years. I am an operating engineer and I know what construction yards look like. Every time you do a job you have left over materials that always comes back to the yard. It is something you don't use all the time but it is too valuable to throw away so you keep it and it gets piled up in the yard. A piece of equipment breaks down, it goes back to the yard. The main reason I am against it is even if you grant the petition with the ordinances the City has, if there is no one there to enforce the ordinance, then it doesn't do any good. It has been 4 1/2 years since I moved into my house and that lot still looks the same as it did 4 1/2 years ago. Thomas Voyles, 20439 Beatrice: I own the home that is two doors down from this proposed site. I would like to reiterate what all the residents have said, mainly once it becomes a site for construction equipment, first of all there are other lots in there that are industrial where people do have trucks and there is enough truck traffic on this street as it is. I am awakened every morning by the trucks starting up every morning. I just think if you allow someone else to bring more trucks down this street, not only will it deteriorate the road but the noise is going to increase tremendously. Like the one resident said the appearance of the lot now is not fabulous and if it becomes a storage yard for construction equipment, it is going to just get progressively worse. There will be no enforcement of how he can use it. That is a given. The property values, obviously no one is going to want to live next to that. There are a lot of children that play in the area. You get a construction site that has materials you are going to have varmints running around. It will just snowball and get progressively worse. I would just hope you guys deny this waiver. Mrs. Sullivan: That is why we would like to see the outside storage done away with because they have so much stuff left from this job and that job and the less outside storage the better. 13220 Mr. Alanskas: I have one question to the petitioner. How long have you lived on Beatrice? Mr. Bame: About 15 years. I have been on that piece of property for about 12 years. X01 Mr. Alanskas: All that time you have not complied with the regulations? Mr. Bame: I lived down the street 15 years. Mr. Berlinghof: Mr. Bame has not parked his vehicles on this lot until very recently. Mr. Alanskas: I know but it has always been in this condition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-12-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #1-9-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1994 on Petition 93-12-2-29 by Richard Bame requesting waiver use approval to allow outdoor storage of contractor's materials and equipment on property located on the west side of Beatrice between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-12-2-29 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 Slaw waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 16.11b(1), 16.11b(2) and 16.22b(5) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to required fencing, landscaping, and a required greenbelt. 3) That the proposed use is incompatible with adjacent residential uses in the area. 4) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master School and Park Plan, to delete existing and proposed designation of property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31 and to also amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use Plan, so as to place a new land use designation on certain property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31. 13221 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence on this petition. Mr. Morrow: This is a City Planning Commission petition, therefore I will go directly to the audience. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-7-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-10-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having held a Public Hearing January 11, 1994 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master School and Park Plan and also Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use Plan; Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master School and Park Plan is hereby amended so as to delete the designation of future park land of property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31, and Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Future Land Use Plan, is hereby amended to place a "Low Density Residential" designation on certain property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendments to the Master Plan will provide for the use of the subject property for more realistic purposes. fir. 2) That the City does not have the financial means to purchase and develop the subject lands for public park purposes. 3) That this area of the City is currently well served with parks and open space facilities. 4) That both the Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the subject park site be removed from the Master School and Park Plan. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Vice 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 Amended Petition 92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS. 13222 Mr. Morrow: John, is there any new correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter on November 17th from the petitioner indicating that they wish to amend their petition to now request office services in lieu of the previous request for research `'or. engineering. That is the purpose for tonight is to report it out and to consider a change from the RUFC zoning classification to that of the office services as opposed to the initial request for research engineering. Mr. Morrow: So to begin with we will have to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was ##1-11-94 RESOLVED that, Amended Petition 92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS be taken from the table. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: We will now go to the petitioner. Charles Tangora: I think you will recall about a year we were before you with a rezoning petition to research development at that time. Mr. Dinan had a user for the property, Cru Cam Corporation. When we got to the Council, before we got to the public hearing Mr. Crute wrote a letter through his attorney to the City saying because of the 'oar length of time that was occurring there he couldn't wait for the approval and he went out and bought another building. Since that time Mr. Dinan has had no other users for the research development and decided not to go forth with that but would like to develop it into offices. Mr. Ventura is Mr. Dinan's real estate agent and if you have any questions that you want to ask Mr. Ventura, he is here for that purpose. Mr. Morrow: Is this a known tenant or is it going to be pretty much a John Dinan office building? Mr. Tangora: He doesn't have a user for the entire building. He normally builds speculative buildings and he has been very successful in the City of Livonia being able to occupy most of them. The most recent one was at Merriman Road and before it was completed Municipal Risk took the entire building. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was ##1-12-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 6, 1993 on Petition 92-10-1-24 by John Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Amended Petition 92-10-1-24 be approved for the following reasons: 13223 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is more compatible to the future uses contemplated for the City-owned Greenmead property. "41111. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are compatible to the existing Victor V office building adjacent on the west. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 11543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Item number 10, Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision, is off the agenda. It will remain on the table. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 675th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on November 30, 1993. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, ``r it was 1i1-13-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 675th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on November 30, 1993 are hereby approved. Mr. Morrow, Vice 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 unit is located in the Murningham Shopping Center, which is located on the north side of Five Mile just east of Middlebelt. The applicant occupies the rear unit in the building that houses the Domino's Pizza in the front. They are proposing to install a 7 1/2 ft. in diameter satellite dish on the roof of their unit, which would be over their unit. It would be approximately six feet from the south edge of the unit and six feet from the east edge of their unit. Mr. Morrow: Anything new Scott since we last saw it? Mr. Miller: They submitted a new drawing that shows that it will just be over their unit. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was 13224 #1-14-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Vasilios Valkanos for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property at 29110 Five Mile Road in Section 13 subject to the following condition: Sow 1) That the Satellite Dish Application by Gust P. Mareskas, received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 11/16/93, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-8-24 by Polaris Communications & Engineering, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna to the building located at 28915 Seven Mile Road in Section 12. ``r Mr. Miller: This office complex is located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Maplewood. They are proposing to locate a satellite dish six foot in diameter to the rear of the office complex. It will be approximately 15 feet high and should not be seen from Seven Mile Road. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ##1-15-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-12-8-24 by Polaris Communications & Engineering, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna to the building located at 28915 Seven Mile Road in Section 12 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the Satellite Dish application by Polaris Communications & Engineering Inc. , received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 12/1/93, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. 13225 Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-12-8-25 by Dean Coppa requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 `'a. of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to erect a free standing awning on property located at 27975 Five Mile Road in Section 24. Mr. Miller: This is the Carriage Car Wash located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Inkster Road and Santa Anita Avenue. They are proposing to locate an awning to the front of their building. It will be a free standing awning at the exit of the car wash. This awning was at one time located at the rear. They would like to now locate it to the front. It is 20 feet long. It will not be backlit or have any signage. Mr. Tent: Mr. Coppa, I use your facility a lot and you do an excellent job. You were before us not too long ago for an addition to your building which I supported and there was some controversy about that but we came to an agreement and it looks quite well. When did you decide on this awning? Were you aware of the awning requirement back then? Mr. Coppa: We were aware about the setback ruling. Is that what you mean? Mr. Tent: No, why didn't you submit this all at the same time because the last time you were going for an addition and this could have been one complete package. Mr. Coppa: You are right. Basically it was due to funding. If we had enough funds when we were done with the addition. Our main concern was the addition at the entrance. Mr. Tent: You could have submitted them both and gotten approval. Mr. Coppa: This is something that came about afterwards. Most of our energy and funds were put into the addition. This was something that was almost a fallout from that. We wanted to utilize something that we had invested in and we had seen that our competitors were either built on zero frontage like Wonderland or had awnings such as the $2.00 car wash on Middlebelt so we though that possibly we could take advantage of possibly enhancing the front of our building also and taking care of some of the safety conditions that we had at the exit concerning the icing in the bad weather. It is something that came out of the addition. Mr. Tent: I have no quarrel with an awning in the front of your building. They have a smaller one on Middlebelt Road that is very attractive. You are talking about a 20 foot extension. I could support something one-half that size. To me this reminds me of an entrance to a yacht club or a cemetery where they put the big tent up. To me I think it is overextending that piece of property. Would you be amenable to putting a smaller awning up because then I could support it. Otherwise I, as one Commissioner, couldn't support it. Niro. 1.3226 Mr. Coppa: When we originally went before the Zoning Board we started out with a 30 foot awning and they said in order to have proper setback we would have to reduce it to a 20 foot awning. So we reduced it to a 20 foot awning. Now if you want us to go to a 10 foot awning, you have to remember that this is 21 foot wide. It is not a narrow Sir awning. It is a larger awning in width. If you want us to go to a 10 foot awning, we will but our preference is to utilize the 20 foot awning that we have proposed to you. Mr. Tent: But you are amenable to going 10 foot shorter? I could support something like that. Twenty I can't. Again, I want to preface this by saying you are doing a great job. Mr. Alanskas: I also go there quite often for my vehicles and one is a small S15 GMC truck and they are not that heavy. I even put 400 pounds of sand back there for weight. I don't think a 10 foot awning would take care of the problem you have because you have that slope there. I see no problem with the 20 feet. Mr. Coppa: The reason I was willing to go for the 10 feet, it was better than nothing. Mr. Morrow: The only comment. I have is the awning seems to be the bane of my existence. They were using them as signs and we got that under control. Now we are trying to use them as structures, building extensions. I don't think whether or not you have that awning is going to cure any problem with ice or water. Your problem is not coming from above. It is coming from underneath the cars or off the cars. I could support a smaller awning like Mr. Tent said. To me it looks like it should be a building rather than an awning. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #1-16-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 93-12-8-25 by Dean Coppa requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to erect a free standing awning on property located at 27975 Five Mile Road in Section 24, for the following reasons: 1) That the Site and Elevation Plan by Clifford N. Wright. Associates, received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 12/3/93, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to with the additional condition the awning not be more than 15 feet in length. as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which were required by the Zoning Board of Appeals) : 1) That the canopy is to be erected as presented and that the total length shall be no more than approximately 15 feet; 2) The side of the canopy are to be used only during the winter months for weather protection. These sides shall have clear sections for visibility, with a small section of red vinyl to match the canopy; 3) At no time shall there be any signage, advertising or graphics on the canopy. 13227 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Engebretson, Fandrei Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 676th Regular Meeting Public Hearings held on January 11, 1994 was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION r \ James C. McCann, Secretary \ ATTEST:.. �_ , ` .. \ ') . Lee Morrow, Vice Chai an jg '41arr