The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-11-13 11368 MINUTES OF THE 612th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA *quo' On Tuesday, November 13, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 612th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 65 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Members absent: James C. McCann Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a 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 `411., with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 90-10-1-24 by The Felician Sisters, O.S.F. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Levan Road between Five Mile and Schoolcraft Roads in the West 1/2 of Section 20 from RUF to R-9. Mr. Bakewell 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 it may be necessary to detain surface drainage on-site since there are no storm sewers of sufficient size and capacity to service the site. (The existing storm sewers in Levan Road were not designed to outlet the subject area in a developed state. ) We have also received a letter from Hazel and Charles Simkins of 36295 Barkley stating the reasons they are opposed to this rezoning petition. These reasons are more traffic and destroying more woods in their area. They also suggest they could possibly use the property at Newburgh and Schoolcraft for this project. We have also received a letter from Roze and Tarek Kadri of 14463 Woodside setting forth the reasons they oppose this rezoning request. Their reasons are traffic congestion and they also request an alernative location 11369 possibly the property on the southwest corner of Schoolcraft and Newburgh. Mr. LaPine: John, the letter from the Engineering Department alluded to the fact they had to put a pond in to put storm water only? ��► Mr. Nagy: They are indicating they have to detain it within the site, which could be a retention pond. Mr. LaPine: Do they have that same problem with any other buildings on that property? Mr. Nagy: I am not aware of that although I do know it is a common practice. Mr. LaPine: Was Engineering saying that the storm sewer in that area is not large enough to handle that amount of water that is coming off that area? Mr. Nagy: I think one of the problems the Engineering Department has had is they are not aware of the extent of the development actually proposed in this area. As we indicated we do not have a site plan. We do not know the actual number of units, the scale of the project, the scope of the project, how much of this area under petition is actually going to be developed, for the engineers to actually compute the storm waters. I think it is just a note to indicate that they may have to, but to what extent is going to be predicated on the actual development. Mr. LaPine: There is no problem as far as the Engineering Department as far as sanitary sewers? Mr. Nagy: That is right. Mr. Gniewek: Could someone from the staff make public what an R-9 is and what is allowed in that particular area, how high the buildings can be and what exactly is involved as far as changing this from RUF to R-9. I believe the audience is not aware of what that change would be. Mr. Nagy: The R-9 zoning classification is a zoning classification that would limit the use of the property for elderly housing. By definition elderly housing would be that those persons who would occupy the dwelling unit would have to be 55 years of age or older and it can only be used for elderly housing. It cannot be used for any office purposes, any commercial purposes. It would be strictly limited to elderly housing. The maximum building height in R-9 zone is two stories. More likely it will be one story due to the fact the elderly would require elevators so no doubt it will likely be one story but the zoning would permit two story. The off-street parking requirement is one parking space for each dwelling unit. If they were to be all one-bedroom units the density would average out to about 16 dwelling units per acre and if they were two-bedroom units, of course, the density would be lower, somewhere in the order of 14 or 15 units per acre. All we have before us tonight is a straight forward rezoning request to rezone the subject area to permit elderly housing. We have yet to hear from the petitioner to actually know what use they intend for the 11370 property but from a City standpoint the rezoning would limit it to residential housing for the elderly, 55 years or older. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, what we are considering here now is just the rezoning of the property. We will have an opportunity, if this rezoning is successful, to review the site plan and at that time the storm sewers, the parking and all that would be addressed as one common '�.► denominator. If the site plan does not comply with the particular use in that area, then it might not necessarily be approved. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: You are absolutely correct Mr. Tent. The next step after the zoning is successful would be the submission of a site plan that would have to go into all those detailed things of engineering, storms, sanitary, size of units, number of units, etc. and they would have to meet all of the technical standards of the ordinance for them to comply with the ordinance and meet your approval. Mr. Tent: We of the Planning Commission would have juristidiction as to the type of buildings that would be put up. In other words, the quality, the aesthetics, etc. That would be part of the site plan approval. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step to the podium and give us your reasons for making this request. Don DiComo, Architect for The Felician Sisters, 18275 Middlebelt: I have present with me two Felician Sisters and what I would like to do is give a brief explanation of the project that we are proposing. This project is a priest retirement center. This is strictly independent living and it will be comprised and made up of 20 living units. It is intended that there will be 5 clusters of 4 units each. They will be single story and will have attached garages. Our present scheme and drawings indicate that we would have a driveway, not from Levan Road at all, but from the northern college drive and is entered only north from that drive to the facility planned. I would like to state also that there are, as I mentioned earlier, 20 units. This particular piece of property or facility can be entered or exited not only from the other college drives along Levan Road but also there are three drives along westbound Schoolcraft. There are, I believe, two drives along Newburgh and also Five Mile can be accessed from the north. Here again I will state that these will be retired persons who are not in the daily work place thus I don't feel that they can impact the adjacent roadways. However, traffic studies are always in order and we have no objection to that. We certainly don't want to add to any of the congestion that is going on along Levan Road either and most especially retired people do not impact traffic loads at the peak traffic times. I would like to state also that the closest building, as we presently have it planned, would be 250 feet from the curb of Levan Road and the drive to enter the facility will be some 560 feet west of the Levan Road curb along the north college drive. This drive does not access the parking 11371 lot. It is beyond that. We have a small site plan I would like to display and we have quite an intricate model of the living units themselves that I would like to show if I have permission from the Commission. I think it is very important as was indicated by the applause. I think it would be good and they would have a right to know what we are planning to do here. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. DiComo, I think even though the issue here tonight, as you well know, is the zoning issue, I think it is valid to look at the site plans from the standpoint that we can use that to better understand the impact of the zoning not only for the Commission but for the impact of the neighbors so without objection from anyone on the Commission, we will ask you to do precisely that to share that information with us. Mr. DiComo made his presentation. Mr. DiComo: The size of the area was picked for that size because of the fact we do know that there are several trees there and I have been instructed by the Felicians that we do not want to disturb any wildlife that is there and we certainly do not want to disturb any of the majestic pines that are along the north college drive that we will use to enter the facility. The facility, as we are planning it, is 560 foot along a row of beautiful pines and is entered north from North College Drive. There will be very few trees removed. These units will be top quality. The facilities are strictly residential looking in nature. There is a garage unit for every single one of the residences and as John Nagy has mentioned there is one required for each living unit. There won't be any cars at the site although we do have guest parking on either side of the main drive and it is adjacent to the community building. There will be a large park and walk area in the center ,,`, of that ring road and it will facilitate any type of walking recreational area and will allow any of the persons from the units to access the community building without crossing any roads. I want to point out that we are far from Levan Road. It is only 20 units. They are retired persons. We are very concerned about what is going on over there and we feel it is important to preserve the nature they have there. I think it is important to give these quality people this kind of living. I think they are deserving too and the Felicians are offering that to the Archdiocese of Detroit. I have worked with the sisters since 1965 and I can honestly say that I don't know of anything that is built permanently on their property that they wouldn't be proud of and I feel the same would be the case here. I think if you take a good look at what is there, it is beautiful. I think it will be a very good contribution to the community. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. DiComo, I want to make sure I am correct. The print is showing all the units that are going to be built? Mr. DiComo: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: The area north of the cluster is this coming up for rezoning also? Mr. DiComo: Yes it is. 11372 Mrs. Fandrei: Why are you requesting so much larger of an area than you need for this development? Mr. DiComo: Let me make mention that those have been woods and held water for a long time and that area in Livonia has a very high water table. We applied for the rezoning and have since had a topography flown and delineated. We really weren't certain until we had test borings made where we actually could place the buildings. Fortunately we were able to place them where you presently see the location. We felt this to be the best location because it affords them the best advantage where we feel the residents will see a changing scene of four seasons of the year. They will actually be nestled in the woods. That was the main reason. We had a drainage problem and soil problems that at the time were not addressed. I personally don't see any objection to squeezing it down to afford them the privacy and security that we originally intended for them. I would have to further discuss that with my client. Mrs. Fandrei: Then it appears there is quite a large area north of the clusters that is up for rezoning that would not necessarily need to be rezoned. Mr. DiComo: I do believe that to be the case. Mrs. Fandrei: That would be my request if we were to go ahead and rezone this. I am not supportive of rezoning land that is not needed for this project, especially the large area that I see there. When we saw the Felician Sisters last, it was for the rezoning just south of Five Mile to OS for the elderly and the nursing home and there was a portion of that property which we at that time had discussed rezoning from OS. That is between the drain and Five Mile on the east side of the road and I would like the Felician Sisters to be aware that that is through the Planning Commission's petition going to be up for rezoning back to RUF. Now that is between the OS and Five Mile and east of the road. One other question. The units you have planned right now, are they one-bedroom units? Mr. DiComo: They are all one-bedroom units. Mr. Kluver: In keeping with the current dialogue, what is the total size of the proposed area for rezoning? Mr. DiComo: Thirty-eight acres. Mr. Kluver: The exact size of the total development: Mr. DiComo: Under ten acres. Mr. Kluver: So you are looking at developing ten of the thirty-eight acres? That is about 25%? Mr. DiComo: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Mr. DiComo, two letters were read into the record referencing alternate sites. Was that ever considered that you were aware of? err 11373 Mr. DiComo: I would have to turn that over to the Sisters. I know that by the time we got involved certain general areas were investigated. What went on before that I am sure the Sisters can answer. Mr. Morrow: As long as we address it sometime tonight because it was read into the record as a form of a question. The second question are you or '''r► the Sisters aware of any future expansion of the facilities provided on that R-9? Mr. DiComo: Let me answer that in this respect only. I think if there was any expansion it would go around that ring road. It would not move further north or on either side. We talked about it at one time but the number 20 is the one we finalized on. I don't see it forming another pod and moving across that site at this time. Of course, I don't know what will happen in the future. One of the things I might mention the Sisters were very concerned about, and so were the Priests, they were very concerned about not being in the wide open. They, as the people writing objections, were concerned and they like nature and they like the animals. They don't want to live in a plains type of area for the same reasons. Mr. LaPine: On the same theme that my other colleagues have been talking about, that was one of my concerns. Why are we rezoning all this property when we are only going to use a small portion. The worry I have is once you have the rezoning then you can expand the R-9 but you have indicated to us that to the north where all the trees are you have a water table problem and therefore there isn't any possibility of anything being built there. Is that what you are telling us? • Mr. DiComo: Not really. It holds a lot of water in various areas and we can build anywhere there because we have no subterranean items such as basements. What we mean is if we want to build in an area that is wet, we would have to build up and by building up you would have to do earth moving and earth moving would remove the woods. We wanted to make sure of those areas that were buildable. You actually could build in there but I don't think we would care to. Mr. LaPine: If that is the case, then there would be no reason to have that property rezoned. If you have no reason to use that portion, then why rezone it to R-9? Mr. DiComo: My recommendations to my clients would be exactly that. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding these are going to be for retired Priests? Mr. DiComo: It is definitely independent living. These will not be infirmed. They must be totally mobile. Mr. LaPine: Are these Priests from the Metropolitan Detroit area? Mr. DiComo: They are from the Archdiocese of Detroit. Mr. LaPine: Do they rent these? Mr. DiComo: Yes. "r. 11374 Mr. LaPine: Is it a profit making operation? Sisters: Non-profit. Mr. DiComo: The Sisters want to retain ownership so they can maintain the property as they see fit. The Archdiocese of Detroit includes all `orm. of Livonia and several western suburbs all the way to Port Huron. Mr. Tent: Mr. DiComo, Mr. LaPine touched on a question I had on the profitability of the project. It is my understanding that the Felician Sisters will own it entirely and this will be their project. Is that correct? Mr. DiComo: The Felician Sisters will retain ownership of the property and the physical attributes, the actual facility. Mr. Tent: As far as taxability, there is no tax revenue the City would receive from any portion of anything related to this property? Mr. DiComo: I can't answer that. I don't know. Mr. Tent: The third question I have is would they be all private services within the complex such as garbage pickup, street maintenance, etc. Mr. DiComo: I guess before the Sisters answer I would say I don't think it would even impact on their garbage or trash removal because of the facility they have adjacent to it. Mr. Tent: That would all be internal within the complex? Mr. Dicomo: Yes. *lar Carol Groening, 36263 Barkley: If these people don't want to live in an open area, Frank's Nursery, I am sure, is close by and they can give them plenty of trees to plant. There are organizations trying to plant two million trees to keep our earth safe. If they want to see any animals when they take up that woods, they better buy a bird in a gilded cage because we cannot keep destroying our earth and keep happy things around. They have already drowned the frogs. There is nothing more beautiful than that raccoon sitting in my tree eating my suet or a opossum sliding off the edge of my porch or a little gopher or anything else that is alive out there. There is no house that is going to be more beautiful than that. Rhonda Stoeckle, 36296 Lyndon: I agree with Carol Goening. She lives right behind me and I see the opossums in her back yard and the raccoons. I also have a question. We talked about the sewage problems. Who pays for those sewers? Is that the City's responsibility or the contractors and the owners of the property? Mr. Engebretson: We will let Mr. Nagy handle that but I believe that the developer is responsible. Mr. Nagy: That is absolutely correct. The developer will have to pay for the construction of the sewers and the sewer system and will also have to pay a fee to the City of Livonia to tap the sewers and of course `�. they will pay a sewage disposal fee as well. 11375 Ms. Stoeckle: What about the road? The road has not been improved since they constructed the addition to the hospital. Several people have lost mufflers, especially at the entrance driveway. The City, I suppose, is responsible for repaving the road but now we are going to have more construction and Levan Road will be more torn up. We lived with Levan Road closed for the whole summer when they widened ;` it a few years back and we have lived with the construction of the addition to the hospital and now we will have more construction and more road repairs. Also, 250 foot from Levan with the possibility, if you rezone the whole parcel of property of expanding along either side of the circle driveway, how guaranteed are we of leaving that 250 foot wooded area towards Levan if later, say 3 or 5 years from now, they decide to put another cluster of homes adjacent to the circle driveway? Mr. Nagy: I think what we should do is ask the petitioners to amend their petition to delete the area that is outside of their actual development area. Now that they have made their soil studies, their soil analysis, their topography and find they only need 20 units, I would recommend that they amend their petition to delete the area outside of their actual development area. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add one comment to that. Let's say that happens and that property is left RUF, as it presently is, they can sell that property and you could look at a subdivision built across the street, assuming that it is buildable land, and it couldn't be stopped because the zoning exists. I am just giving you a factual piece of information. Ms. Stoeckle: Our subdivision also had to have tons of fill dirt put in before it was built. I think the Felician Sisters have probably owned that property for a number of years but I doubt that they would ever `m sell it. Mr. Engebretson: You were looking for guarantees and there are no guarantees. If we limit the zoning to just include that smaller area at the southern end, then you don't have any better or worse position than you have now. Ms. Stoeckle: We have no alternative but they do. They have an abundance of acreage there that is underdeveloped. Donald Hesse, 35928 Barkley: One of my concerns is the fact that this was just brought to our attention Monday. We had no prior notice or no information of what was about to be developed. I have no qualms about people developing property they own if it is done in the proper manner and it is not going to distrub unduly the rest of the area. My concern begins with the fact I think they have already filled in on the wetlands. I don't know if anybody has ever investigated like the DNR or anybody but they did an awful lot of filling in the last couple of years there and like the other lady alluded to we don't have the frogs, we don't have the nature system in there, not that it is all the property, but there are some ecological things that have to be taken into consideration and I think they have already usurped that. I think they have just sneaked some of this in. The guarantee of whether or not this is 11376 going to have a hazardous affect on Levan Road is another concern. I wasn't here early enough to know whether they are going to have egress onto Levan Road from this project or not. We already have quite a traffic problem on Levan with regard to speeding, etc. Not that these gentlemen are going to be speeders but it is another congestion situation. The probability of them developing the full '41ft. 38 acres, if that is what it is, I think is quite a threat. I don't feel threatened necessarily by what they are doing, it is a manner of not having enough input to know how it is going to be developed and how it is going to affect our subdivision. It wouldn't bother me if they were building a subdivision quite frankly. We have other developments that have transpired and added homes but in a natural way. This just seems to be something that is dropped in on us from the clear blue. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, you raised two questions. I will answer one and ask Mr. Nagy to answer the other. You said you weren't here when they were discussing ingress and egress from Levan. The answer is there are no new curb cuts in Levan. However, there will be a hook-up with other streets that exist now at the college where they would have ingress or egress to Levan and/or three down to Schoolcraft or one or two up on Five Mile Road so the five units in there wouldn't necessarily all be taking ingress or egress onto Levan. The other issue you brought up was your concern about notification. I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to review for you what the procedure is and make sure you don't feel you have been bypassed in any way on that. Mr. Nagy: It is the practice of the City Planning Commission when a petition is filed that we print a public notice in the official paper of the City of Livonia at least 15 days prior to the public hearing and that we give notice to all the utility companies and the railroad Nor companies doing business in the City of Livonia. Further, it is the policy of the City by the Planning Commission and the City Council to use the latest tax rolls and send notices to all those residents within a 500 foot radius of the area under petition a notice of the public hearing and we use the tax rolls. We have no way of knowing who actually owns the property or whether you are buying it on land contract or whatever. We don't do title searches. We use the tax rolls and wherever it is indicated on the rolls who pays the taxes, we send a letter at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. Mike Neary, 36383 Lyndon: My question concerns the property on Newburgh and Schoolcraft. What is it zoned presently? It is about 15 to 20 acres. Mr. Nagy: RUF, rural urban farm. Mr. Neary: It seems to me that would be an ideal spot. The land is clear and probably sewered and the drainage is probably a lot more advantageous at that point. Another thing is about the driveway around his circle. He said 200 feet to the nearest building. How wide is the asphalt road? Are we down to 150 feet now? How far from the building is that road going to be? Mr. Morrow: Maybe Mr. DiComo could answer the alternate site that was mentioned by this gentlemen and the letters. Have you talked to your clients if they had pursued other sites? 11377 Mr. DiComo: I could talk to them about that. I know that they had. How and what basis they used to reject those other ones, I don't know. I will be pleased to do that. We have no problem with amending the petition for the size of the development itself. That wouldn't be a problem. I guess I would also make mention, they talk about what might happen, I guess when I look at it I look across the street Nur and I see those right up against the street. The closest building is 250 feet. The road is even closer. You people will take a look at the site plan and the landscape plan. I know you people take your job very seriously and I know that there will be a lot of landscaping, there will be berms, I know there will be heavy planting. We will have to go to Franks or wherever. I would also like to say I am a conservationist. I put my pocketbook where my mouth is. I spend a lot of money on various ecological type of foundations. As much as I love that, I think that every bit as beautiful as a opossum or a squirrel or a rabbit or a pheasant are the religious people. I think that they should be thought of here too. I think they are every bit as important as any one of those other creatures. They have given their life, and I am not talking just about Catholic, this holds true for any of those in religious life, I think they deserve the beauty that is in Livonia and I think you can be proud of what you have in Livonia. I know I am and this is why I practice here. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to mention that should this zoning issue be successful, it would then move on to the City Council and there would be another public hearing and you would have another opportunity to have your views known there, and then it would go to a City Council voting meeting and if they act on it favorably, then there would be some period of delay while the ordinance takes effect and then the next step in the process would be to come back 'taw approval the Planning Commission for site plan approval and landscaping approval and again there would be another public hearing type format and you would have your opportunity to have input. This is far from the end of this process. This is just the beginning. Mr. Tent: I would like to make one comment to the people in the audience. What the Chairman has indicated is true. The land is presently zoned RUF and if this wasn't effective, they could put a subdivision in that area and you would have a cluster of many homes. The second thing I would like to bring up is the fact that the Felician Sisters have been there for many years and they are the owners of the property and they want to make this look attractive as well for the people who live in the area. I have some mixed emotions about the squirrels and the raccoons because I too feel that those things are important to a neighborhood but I look at both of these and I say which is the biggest evil. If we go ahead and approve this, at least we can control it as far as a senior citizens complex is concerned. It could be made attractive. I wanted to assure the people that whatever action will be taken, it will enhance the neighborhood and you people wouldn't be the losers for it so contrary to your feelings that that land will always stay RUF and nothing will ever happen to it, it could, and we are trying to get the best use of the land. We are looking at your interests and I, as one Commissioner, would make certain that whatever happens it will be for the benefit of the entire Now neighborhood. 11378 There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-10-1-24 closed. Mr. LaPine: I will move to table the petition in order to give the petitioner an opportunity to do two things. Number one to look over the site to see if there are any alternative locations for this project and secondly, if not, that he come back with a scaled down rezoning proposal and only include the property he needs rezoned to develop this project. Mr. Morrow: One of the things we have heard here tonight is the matter of taxation. I would like to also get some sort of an opinion out of our Department of Assessment with regards to that subject. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #11-481-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 13, 1990 on Petition 90-10-1-24 by The Felician Sisters, O.S.F. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Levan Road between Five Mile and Schoolcraft Roads in the West 1/2 of Section 20 from RUF to R-9, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-10-1-24 to the Study Meeting of November 20, 1990. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 'rrr Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-10-1-26 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Clarita and Melvin Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-7 to R-C. Mr. Bakewell 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 their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: This particular property was rezoned approximately 1 1/2 years ago to a classification that would have permitted either apartments or condominiums to be built there and we did get a commitment from the developer that they would build condominiums, although for the most part we were at some risk there because it is not possible to condition zoning on those kinds of promises. However, the petitioner was a reliable person and known to the City and we went ahead and did that. In the meantime this petitioner has sold this property and now we find ourselves in a position where the property could be sold again and again and a property owner could come in and develop that property with apartments, which there was considerable opposition to that type of structure by the nearby neighbors. What 11379 we are doing here, we have initiated this petition ourselves to rezone the property, which would restrict the development to condominium residential rather than depending on the good will and the word of some developer. That is what this is all about. It is a housekeeping matter in some respects. We are guaranteeing that which we had hoped for and which the neighbors had hoped for. That is the purpose of this petition. Are there any other points or questions? Joy Hartmann, 29514 Pickford: I can appreciate what you said about rezoning that and reclassifying that as condominiums but we have been through this before and we have found that we can be somewhat skeptical about it. This R-7. When we came here before the builder stood before you and before us and even one of your own members reminded him he was being taped and he reassured us it was going to be condominiums. As it turned out, one of our neighbors found an apartment shoppers guide and guess what is listed in it. The units that were to be condos are listed as apartments. The shoppers guide gave us the phone number of the man who owns that so immediately, of course, we had to call it and they are being rented as apartments and if we didn't like those he had some on Five Mile and some on Farmington Road. Mr. Morrow: Which property is the lady talking about? Ms. Hartmann: I am talking about the R-7 - Clarita Park. Mr. Morrow: Is this germane to the issue? Mr. Engebretson: I think it is and I think I understand what Ms. Hartmann is saying but it is precisely those reasons that causes this action to be taken. Ms. Hartmann: I can appreciate that but in the meantime why can't what has already been done clarified? Mr. Engebretson: Unfortunately, that is done and now what we are trying to do is guaranteeing that that cannot happen without this property being rezoned back to R-7 and the chances of that happening are slim and none. Ms. Hartmann: Can that now be rezoned? I am talking about the other one. Mr. Engebretson: That is done. Mr. LaPine: When that parcel came in and I wasn't here at the time, there was only a R-7 classification. Under R-7 you can build apartments or condominiums. Since that time this Commission instigated a change in the zoning. Now there is an R-C. R-C means condominiums. If that property was zoned R-C they could not rent them but unfortunately there was no R-C at that time when that property was rezoned R-7. When we rezone this to R-C, they can't build apartments. It has to be condominiums. 11380 Mr. Morrow: I kind of interrupted the lady and I wanted to apologize for that. I guess what we are trying to say is your very concerns are the reasons we are bringing this up tonight. Why we changed the zoning classification was because we saw there was an option. The developer could say we are going to build condos and build apartments. We changed the zoning ordinance to say we are going to „o, zone this to R-C so there will no longer be that option by the developer so when they zone it we will know if it is going to be apartments or condos. We are both on the same wave link. We wish we could change what we did on the R-7 but we can't. Ms. Hartmann: So you are going to reclassify that as condominiums. I don't believe in that whole area there is one lot left. Again, we have strip malls, apartments, etc. Is it a sin in this City to leave one lot green in an area? Mr. Engebretson: You always have the option of purchasing that lot with a neighbor and leaving it green. Mrs. Fandrei: We cannot say no to a land owner if he wants to develop something on his land within the zoning that he has. We can't say no. Ms. Hartmann: I realize that. Again, the man stood here before you and said he was going to put condos in and now you are coming back to us for a reclassification. We are rehashing this. I understood what you said. I hope you understood what I said. We are skeptical. Mrs. Fandrei: We are trying to bring the zoning down to make the neighbors more comfortable. Mr. Tent: Ms. Hartmann, this property now is zoned R-7. If we took no action on it today and we denied this petition, it would remain R-7 and '°` they could sell it and do exactly what you are opposed to so under this petition now we are going to R-C to prevent that from happening. We don't want that to happen any more. In this particular case we are going to R-C classification just to protect the area. Anything in the future that is coming too, we are going to watch it very carefully. We cannot undo the wrong that has been done before but we can correct what we have on the books now. I hope you appreciate the fact that we are attempting to do that. William Bagwell, 18305 Melvin: My first question is, is there a plan to develop this land at this time? Mr. Engebretson: Not that we know of. We are the initiators of this petition to give you, the neighbors, the protection that has been articulated here in the past five or ten minutes. Mr. Bagwell: If that is the case, then I am in favor of the petition but yesterday a sign went up on the property saying for information on this property call this phone number. I called the number and got an answering machine and left my name and I haven't got a response. Somebody somewhere is planning on doing something with that land. There has been survey marks on that land. There have been some crews out. Somebody is planning on doing something with that land. 11381 If you are going to stop them from building apartments and put condos there, that is fine with me. If the only way to do that is to change the R-7 to R-C, then that is alright but I think that apartment complex built on Clarita is ugly. If they build one like that on Melvin, I am going to protest it from today until it gets done. If that is the only way to do it is to change the zoning, -' but make sure at the meeting in front of the Council that the person who owns the property who is planning on doing something doesn't come to the Council and say wait a minute we have these plans and we are now zoned R-7 and we want to continue the plans in R-7 because there has been something done on that property. Mr. Engebretson: There is no activity that we are aware of that conflicts with what we are doing here. John can perhaps clarify this that the City is on solid ground here in moving forward with this petition. The property owner may be here tonight to object to this or to support it. We will just have to wait and see if that happens. We are the petitioner but the property owner certainly has been notified. John, you would certainly verify that wouldn't you? Mr. Nagy: I would agree with you 100%. This is an action by the City of Livonia. The property owner is not even with us this evening. This is action that the City has taken by this Planning Commission to restrict the property to condominium development. It will put a further restriction on the property and limits them to develop the property with the original intention, which was to build condominiums. We didn't have a condominium ordinance at the time. We now have one and we are going back now and rezoning this property to limit it to condominiums as was originally proposed. Mr. Bagwell: If it passes here, it will go to the Council? Mr. Engebretson: It goes to Council and assuming it passes there, then the zoning takes effect in due course and then if the property owner comes to the City with a proposed site plan, it better be for condominiums. Kathy Powell, 18621 Melvin: I am sure we all appreciate your action on our behalf. I have a question though. If we are talking about restricting the zoning from apartments to condos, is it possible to change the zoning to single family dwellings? Is that a possibility? Because to put up condos would be the same visual affect that we have now on Clarita Park. Mr. Engebretson: You have raised several good questions. Regarding the other zoning possibilities, it certainly would be a possibility to rezone it for single family homes, however the practicality of that when we went through this issue a year and a half ago seemed to be less than practical and I don't recall any specific discussion on that. On the other hand, to not take this action, we leave ourselves very vulnerable. Of course any property owner can come in and seek a change in zoning to anything they want. That doesn't mean they are going to get it. The property owner, as someone said earlier tonight, has the right to use their property in the best use possible. As far as what we are doing here tonight, we believe this to be the least offensive to the neighborhood. We would rr. 11382 guarantee you the condominiums fitting into the neighborhood from the standpoint of style versus what you have down the street, which I agree with you are not aesthetically pleasing at all, because they do have to come through a site plan approval and the City takes great pains to go about getting that done in a proper manner. Now Mr. Morrow: Just to expand on that a little but, when we rezoned that to the R-7 we were told it would be condominiums. That particular developer did not go forward with those plans. When we were made aware he was not moving forward with those plans we moved very quickly to consider our new ordinance because we knew it was vulnerable to apartments because the property owner did not go forward with what they told us. This is why we are moving in that direction. It was approved on the basis of R-7 but with the idea it would be condos. Mr. LaPine: The other thing I would like to clarify. Anybody that is here this evening should leave their name with our secretary because it is my understanding we do not have a public hearing on site plan approval. Is that right John? Therefore, when the time comes when we get an opportunity to look at the site plan I think it is imperative that the people in the neighborhood be here so you can see what is being built and how it is being built and if you have any objections, you would have an opportunity to voice them. If you don't leave your name with our secretary, no one will be notified of site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: I stand corrected by the former Chairman and I would recommend that you do precisely as he recommended so that you will be notified of every single issue that comes along relative to that piece of property whether that happens in the near future or some vim„ number of years from now. Robert Detter, 29764 Clarita: I can definitely see that this is an improvement to the rezoning that you have now as anybody should be able to see that it is. I have one question. Is R-C up to two stories? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Detter: This other project was only one story. Even though they are condominiums they could be two stories but no higher than two stories. Like I say I am in favor of the rezoning. It is definitely an improvement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-10-1-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##11-482-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-10-1-26 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Clarita and Melvin Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-7 to R-C, the City Planning 11383 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-10-1-26 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will insure that the subject site will not be developed as a rental apartment project. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of encouraging the development of condominium units as opposed to rental units in multiple family residential districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-10-1-27 by L & J Schmier Management and Investment Co. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road between Joy Road and West Chicago in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from R-9 and RUF to R-1. Mr. Bakewell 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 their office has no objections to the rezoning petition. Mr. Engebretson: As you can all see the vast majority of this land is presently zoned for senior housing and there is one lot that has a home on it. That is the rural urban farm classification and the proposal is to change this zoning to accomodate single family homes in the R-1 district. Will the petitioner come to the podium and tell us your reasons for making this request. Steven Schaefer of Phoenix Land Development, 5499 Commerce Road, West Bloomfield: Basically what we have proposed here is the rezoning of an R-9 parcel to a R-1 parcel to accommodate single family homes which we intend to build and this site would accommodate approximately 48 single family homes that we would propose to build there. I have some renderings of the types of homes we would propose to build. (Mr. Schaefer presented his drawings) Currently we are developing a similar site in Canton Township. These homes are going to be selling in the upper $90,000 range. I can assure you if this is approved, we offer a number of different elevations and styles and we like to see the neighborhoods have a nice mix of homes. I think we will be creating a very appealing neighborhood. We completed two developments. One in Farmington Hills just recently, which sold in the $89,000 range, and another one previous to that out in the Novi area. 11384 Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the square footage? Mr. Schaefer: The colonial would be about 1550 to 1700 square feet depending on what you want to do with the family room. The tri-levels start at 1200 and go up to about 1700 square feet with lower levels complete. The ranch style would be about 1300 to 1400 square feet. Nor Mr. Tent: Mr. Schaefer, will these homes have basements? Mr. Schaefer: The colonial and ranch would. The tri-level would have a partial basement. Mr. Tent: As far as the landscaping, is that all part of the package? Mr. Schaefer: No, we typically do not include the landscaping. We just put a finish grade on the lot. That would be up to the homeowner. Mr. Tent: You gave us a price of $90,000 plus. What is the limit? Mr. Schaefer: About $106,000. Mr. Tent: What would be the low level? Mr. Schaefer: That would be the tri-level at about $95,900. I am hoping for slightly lower land costs here than I am looking at in Canton. Mr. Tent: If you are successful in the rezoning, you intend to develop it? You won't sell the site? Mr. Schaefer: Yes we intend to develop it. This is a joint venture between L & J Schmier and Phoenix Land Development. We typically are developers and builders but we got together with Jeff Schmier, who is my partner's brother, on this piece and we will be developing it together but we will be responsible for the building. I am a qualified officer and licensed builder. Mr. Tent: Have you built in Livonia at all? Mr. Schaefer: No I have not. I might add I am looking forward to building in this community because I feel the situation that we are faced with now with the moratorium on the water, I have another development I am working up in the Farmington Hills area and it looks like we won't be able to have water service because of the moratorium by the City of Detroit. I understand this area is not affected so we want to proceed at full speed with our attentions toward this project so as soon as we can get our approvals we would like to proceed to plat and hopefully get one of our models up as soon as possible. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Schaefer, what is the exterior of the homes? Mr. Schaefer: Typically what we are using is T-111 siding on three sides of the house, brick on the front elevations and on the upper levels we are using a wood siding that comes pre-primed and wrapped. It is a very nice quality siding. If somebody wants to go with a no maintenance exterior, we do offer that. r.. 11385 Mr. Vyhnalek: Does the Archdiocese still own this property? Mr. Schaefer: Yes they do. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you change the zoning, then you can buy it? '4111,, Mr. Schaefer: Jeffrey Schmier has had it under contract, I believe, for about 5 years. They have agreed to go with the rezoning and they are restructuring their agreement with the Archdiocese if this is successful to provide us with release clauses on the individual lots. Mr. Vyhnalek: I have been on this Commission since 1980 and it started back in 1979. This is probably the sixth or seventh project on this land. Mr. Binder out there has been here every meeting. It started out RUF and went up to R-9 and now it is back to R-1 and it is going to be interesting what the neighbors want this year. I am looking forward to what they have to say. Mr. LaPine: To the south of this property you have three houses. Have you tried to buy any of that property so we could extend that to the end? Mr. Schaefer: I would be open to doing that. The third house was up for sale and I called on it and they told me they were asking $185,000. At that point I asked why are they asking so much and they said didn't you know about the mall that the Archdiocese has planned for the property. It is a good speculative piece. This is what the realtor told me. I said that is very nice and that was the end of our conversation. I would like to expand it. We originally came in with a little bit of a different site plan when we were working with the piece. It is just a little bit hard. Looking at this Slaw piece, my best benefit would be to come back and I don't know how these property owners would feel about that and I would like to leave the buffer on the rear of those lots. The individual that I am planning on picking up is going to end up with a windfall. I would like to pick up other parcels and it is an option and I would certainly contact the individuals and let you know what would transpire with those individuals. Mr. LaPine: It would be nice if we get a subdivision in there if it would take in all those abutting to the C-2 property. I understand the position you are in. If people know you want it, they are going to jack up the price. My personal opinion is at this time I think an R-1 is a good mix for that area. We keep hearing people talking about we have to have starter homes for young couples. I think the homes in the $80,000 and $90,000 and low $100,000, which a lot of young couples are still not going to be able to come up with that type of money. I think the homes you are planning on building would be compatible to what is in the area. I would have to see the site plan but to rezone from R-9 to R-1, on the surface, looks like a legitimate idea. 11386 Mr. Morrow: My question is in regard to the platting of the property. In the strictest interpretation of an R-1, how many units could this property support? Mr. Schaefer: About 48 units. Mr. Morrow: In other words you are maximizing the R-1 zoning so that all the lots will not be in excess of the lot size. Mr. Schaefer: I wouldn't say they are all minimum. They certainly aren't. I have some room to work with and some of the lots vary in size. We did account for the buffer on the road. Mr. Morrow: John, what would be the maximum? Mr. Nagy: I think the 48 is a realistic number for R-1. Mr. Morrow: So we don't have a great deal of lots at the minimum requirement? Mr. Nagy: He could max out at maybe 50 but to his credit he has given us lot sizes that are in excess of minimum requirements. Stan Henderson, 28428 Elmira: I have one concern. I was wondering what happened to the plans for the zoning classification R-9? I was wondering if the developer pursued that at all? Our association was in favor of that and would have been supportive of that at the time it was requested not so very long ago. Mr. Schaefer: What happened was Jeffrey Schmier had gotten involved with a fellow from American House and I don't know the exact particulars but things didn't work out with what they were proposing and the property has been sitting there and basically my partner Mark is Jeffrey's brother and he contacted us on the piece and we are strictly a single family builder. I think originally they proposed 98 or 102 units. Why that wasn't followed through on I am really not certain. Mr. Henderson: On R-1 classification is that 60 foot lots? Mr. Schaefer: 60 x 120. Mr. Henderson: Would any of these houses be built for rental? Mr. Schaefer: No. Mr. Henderson: Could you by chance tell me the address in Canton where you built these other homes so we can take a look at them. Mr. Schaefer: Right now we are building on the north side of Canton between Sheldon and Lilley. We do have models up and I would be happy to draw you a map. Henry Binder: There was a meeting called January 23, 1989 to have this piece of property zoned for senior citizens. At that time it was passed by \r. 11387 the Planning Commission and went up to the Council. At that point there was a big growl in the auditorium here. Finally Mr. Bishop spoke up and he said "Now what do these people really want down there? Get together with the civic association and find out what you really want." My answer to him was we have already decided on what we wanted. We have worked with many of them and nothing has been done about it so then it went on to the Committee of the �.. Whole, came back and they finally voted on it, yes senior citizens housing fine. This is what we wanted. Now, you have another deal just like you got rid of tonight here about zoning, popping it around and selling it. Now I would have to see the papers to really believe the Archdiocese didn't sell it to that builder because he was not here at that meeting. He was not there at the meeting at the time when Council was having a hearing on it. They couldn't arouse no ownership, no buyer, nobody. Now here we are, and I have lived there for 20 years, and you talk about harassment. You talk about coming to public hearings. You talk about having your windows shot out. You talk about having your car set up and bombed. It all has happened just because Henry Binder spoke about what he felt. Now here we are tonight and I am not against R-1 zoning but ladies and gentlemen I am going to tell you one thing, something better have stopped. This business of going back and forth and coming back and forth to City Hall, is a bunch of bull and I have had it. Believe you me, and I will go as far as the Mayor and on down the line and I will be right in the newspaper. Believe you me I will be, because I am going to gather my sources as I have before, my friends and neighbors, and by golly we reorganized Wilson Acre Homeowners Association and let me tell you when they put their foot down, they put it down. Now you can vote on it the way you want to vote on it. I am for R-l. That is fine with me but I tell you one thing, don't come back again and say we are going to rezone it again for something else. That is all I �► have to say tonight here. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-10-1-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was ##11-483-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-10-1-27 by L & J Schmier Management and Investment Co. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road between Joy Road and West Chicago in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from R-9 and RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-10-1-27 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding single family residential development. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes that encourage the development of additional affordable single family dwellings which are needed in the City. arrr 11388 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of medium density residential land use for the subject lands. 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. Saw Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent: Mr. Schaefer, now you heard Mr. Binder's speech. Do you intend to go forth and no more dilly dallying around? Mr. Schaefer: I intend on going forward. From what I understand Mr. Schmier has only requested the zoning to R-9. I guess there were some previous owners to that and what has transpired, I really feel bad for Mr. Binder having to come in. I can appreciate the fact he wants to know what is going to go on but I can assure you we plan on proceeding with this project right away. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Schaefer, I would encourage you to try to purchase those other parcels if possible. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-9-2-31 by Richard George/Wine Barrel requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses within an existing retail building on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Milburn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Bakewell 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 their department has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. A letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau states the proposal is acceptable but not a good design. They state a problem is noted at the pedestrian door located on the east side. The layout makes this the customer entrance. The door opens approximately 4 feet into a 20 foot wide driveway and customers also have to share the drive with vehicle traffic. This is not a very safe situation. They recommend that: (1) A customer entrance be provided from the south side of the lot. (2) Construct a 4 foot walk from Plymouth Road along the east side for pedestrian traffic. (3) Install posts and/or guard rail at the door to protect and channel the pedestrian. (4) Make the drive on the east side a one-way drive. (5) Post "Watch for Pedestrians" signs at both ends of the drive and a similar sign at the door. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The existing building is 11389 at a deficient front yard setback and will require Z.B.A. approval to enlarge. 2. Deficient number of parking spaces - deficient 21 spaces. 3. Deficient parking space width. 4. Deficient landscape area. 5. The gravel portion of the rear parking area must be asphalt paved and the badly damaged existing asphalt drives and parking areas need to be resurfaced. 6. The second floor office area will require a Barrier Free Waiver from the Michigan Department of Labor. 7. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. 8. The proposed rear addition eliminates all rear/side access for the lease space. Patrons must park in the rear then walk down a driveway to the front of the lease space. There is not sufficient room for a sidewalk on the west side which poses a hazard for pedestrian traffic in general and a severe hardship to the handicapped. 9. The location of the trash dumpster may cause some difficulty for the garbage truck when the parking lot is full. They further state it is their understanding that New York Carpet World to the east and K Mart to the south, will not permit access to the rear of this site across their property lines, requiring this development to be completely self-sufficient. It is their opinion it would be preferable to incorporate the wine cellar/storage area of the proposed addition into the unused lease space of the existing building rather than enlarge a building on a site that may not support the intended use. This would reduce the parking deficiency and permit the area shown for the new addition to be used for the loading/unloading zone instead of the east side drive. The rear of the building would also be a more logical location for the dumpster. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us why you are making this request. Richard George, 5565 Shore Drive, Orchard Lake: My proposal, as Mr. Nagy stated, `r. has a lot of defects but we feel for the type of business that we have number 1, the parking, which is the biggest problem, we feel can be solved with the amount of time that the customer in our store shops. The average customer in a convenience store is there 5 to 15 minutes. The amount of parking spaces which we propose, even in the holiday season, in our wildest dreams could not be filled because of the amount of time the cars are parked in that space. We could easily put four customers through one parking spot in an hour. The proposed addition is needed because we would like to change the concept of our business from a lower wine clientele to an upper wine clientele. The store that we presently operate does have fine wines. Wines that we refer to as wines that live. They need to be stored in an area that is temperature controlled and the best possible area that you can store these wines in is an underground cellar and doing this we can store our wines for 10, 20, 100 years. The temperature does not change that dramatically in a cellar or underground. In doing this we have to accomplish three things, number 1 - vibration, number 2 - temperature control and number 3 - light. These things are all required for the wine to live. We could change the temperature. We could put the wine upstairs and 11390 have a ten degree change and we could possibly hurt a case of 1966 wine that might be valued at $10,000 and lose it. The proposed basement, as is, would allow us to number 1, keep the vibration to a minimum because of the vibration off Plymouth Road. Number 2, the rear end, cars will not be going over the basement area. The basement area, the back room, the new addition, the storage space upstairs, the bottle area behind the counter, the gondola space, these are all areas where the customer cannot shop. Yes we have the square footage but no we do not have the selling area. How many people can I put through a selling area of 2,600 square feet? The object here is to serve the community in a safe environment. We have tried to do that with number 1, putting the sidewalk on the east side, putting pedestrian pulls at the door, giving the loading zone an area where no cars would have to pass, which is on the east side of the building, provide a door at the east side and rear end and post signs "Pedestrian Walk". We have talked to Carpet World on the east end of our building. Before we bought the building they were very receptive. We think it is a great idea and yes we could possibly do a joint venture but you would have to talk to the tenant. They were very receptive. We purchased the building. Unfortunately, I didn't do my homework completely. We have talked to K-Mart. They have said they will possibly discuss a joint parking venture in the future but as of today, we have nothing from them. We have no commitments. They don't even want to talk to us. If we look at the project logically, and I did do a landslide business because of the mall behind me, and I did fill all these parking spaces that you are talking about, then I will become a millionare and I would love to do that. We would like to talk to err► K-Mart about possibly purchasing more parking spaces, possibly leasing, but unfortunately we don't have that right now. The building, as it sits presently, would not be feasible to take entirely because convenience stores do not require this much space any longer. If you look around you, we have the gas stations that are now party stores. We have gas stations who service 150 cars in an hour with very few parking spaces. They have taken business from the party store, therefore the parking spaces required, we feel, are not that many as the ordinance requires. We have operated and owned ten other stores. We have a store presently that does 1.5 million. It does not fill that many spaces. I would like to upscale the type of business I run. I would like to quit the low end Wild Irish Rose customer but I cannot do this without a wine cellar. I cannot merchandise or sell my wines if they are not alive. I cannot sell to my customers a bottle of wine that has turned into vinegar. I cannot purchase products three to five years in advance out of France unless I have a place to let them live. I can put bottles of $2.99 wines on my shelves and turn them over but in order to sell the type of product I want, and you are all welcome to come and view the wines that we presently have in inventory, and we would love to find a home for 11391 them, and see that I presently have over $100,000 in my costs in these products. It goes further than this, we also have liquors. Though they don't live they are properly stored in a wine cellar. Though this might sound funny, baseball cards stay better in a dry cool climate, which we do sell. .,,r,,, We are proposing this in hopes of getting your approval for a product that we feel can do good in Livonia for a store that we feel will upgrade the neighborhood. We have a small prototype here. We feel we will upgrade a neighborhood in an area where millions of dollars are spent. This total project will cost us a million dollars. We do have some drawbacks. We hope that we can work with the Planning Commission, the Council and the Zoning Board to solve these problems. If you have any questions, I would love to answer them. Mr. Tent: Do you own this property presently? Mr. George: Yes I do. Mr. Tent: Have you had a business operation in this location? Mr. George: The building is presently vacant but I do have a location that is approximately two blocks west. It is the old Elias Brothers Market. Mr. Tent: You have quite an ambitious project here and you detailed the fact that you need a certain type of location for your wine cellar so the vibrations wouldn't affect them. I have gone over and looked at this site and quite frankly it is too small for what you are intending to use it for. In other words, up and down Plymouth Road there is a lot of vacant property and being that you are going to wr have such a unique type of wine cellar, the customer trade will follow you. Isn't there any place else along Plymouth Road where you could put this type of operation in that would be compatible to what you are attempting to do? I, for one, looked at all the violations you have here and I have reviewed Mr. MacDonald's letter and the thing you are asking for is contrary to the spirit of that type of zoning. Why haven't you considered tearing down that building completely and building the type of structure that you could use for this type of operation. To use one part of it for a retail operation and use the other for your business. The parking, everything there is contrary to good zoning. What you are asking now, you are claiming a hardship. A hardship goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals not the Planning Commission. I say everything has to comply with the zoning before we can act on it. If it doesn't comply with the zoning, then by law we have to turn it down. In this case it is not just one item but it is item after item that does not comply so while what you said sounds great but this is the wrong place, in my opinion, for this because it is like putting five pounds in a two pound can. Mr. George: Let me answer that. Number 1, we have a problem with the Liquor Control Commission and with the City of Livonia. The problem with the Liquor Control Commission is we have to be 1/2 mile away from an existing license and there is no property to the east of me 11392 where I could possibly put a liquor license or where the City of Livonia would allow me or the Liquor Control Commission and on Plymouth Road west there is no place where I could place a liquor license because the Summit Party Store would be too close. We have tried desperately to talk to our tenant at the Micro Master to either tear him down or to occupy his building and put our store there. I don't know if you have ever tried to place a liquor license in Livonia. Obviously you haven't. Try to place a liquor license in Livonia! It is one of the hardest things in Michigan to do. Mr. Tent: Even in this place where you are within 500 feet separating you from another SDM licensed facility, you still have to have a waiver use from the City. Mr. George: No we can get a waiver use because there is a five lane highway. Mr. Tent: You have to go before the Council and it is up to them to decide if they are going to give that to you or not. Mr. George: We have to go before the Liquor Control Commission but I have, in the past, had a license approved. I have had a license transferred under the same situation. We feel very confident that we could get the license approved for this location. Number two, you say why didn't we put it someplace else on Plymouth Road. Can you give me a suggestion. Mr. Tent: That is up to you. I am just saying this place isn't right for you because of all the problems you have with it. Why can't you seek another location. Mr. George: I have investigated every building up and down Plymouth Road. 'limy There is no place more feasible than this location. I have been on Plymouth Road since 1976 from Redford to Livonia. I did have a store on Joy Road in Livonia between Middlebelt and Inkster. The problem here is at the present location I am at, I am set back too far and I have a tenant who refuses to move at any cost. I offered to buy his lease out at $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, $30,000. He refuses to move. I have invested large amounts of money, and I know this is not your problem, in the City of Livonia on this one venture that we felt would fly. Unfortunately it did not. We set back too far. We have lost money for five years. We can no longer withstand the loss. We definitely will close the store before April 30, 1991. That is definite. We definitely have a hardship case. If we look at it logically and you look at the amount of floor space that the customer can possibly use, I know the ordinance says you will give me 80% of the usable space, but I have a situation here where the floor space is only 2500 square feet. The customer will never ever walk anywhere else except in those 2500 square feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are presently at the old Elias Meat Market? Mr. George: Yes I am. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own that? 11393 Mr. George: Yes I do. Mr. Vyhnalek: What tenant did you mean you are trying to move? Mr. George: Micro Masters in front of the Elias Brothers Market. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your parking is 21 spaces deficient. That is over 50% deficient. You have two people working in your store? Mr. George: The most at any one time four, possibly five. Mr. Vyhnalek: So that is still going to leave you only about 14 spaces for customers. Mr. George: This is true. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are trying to say that is enough during the weekends and the Friday nights? Mr. George: I am trying to tell you that even at Christmas time that those spaces turn over on the average of four times an hour and they will probably turn over seven times an hour. If that is true, 7 times 14 is a lot of cars. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am a little confused about the exit on the east side into traffic. Mr. MacDonald said the doorway swings open into the traffic lane. Mr. George: On the east side of the building is a loading zone. Cars will not pass that area. Mr. Nagy: Mr. MacDonald said there is no restriction so therefore there is a `` hazard. Edward Ashor, Architect: We did provide a four foot walkway and it is barricaded with guard posts on the east side. The truck loadsing dock on the east side is a one way exit drive for trucks only. The cars enter on the west and exit on the west. Mr. Vyhnalek: Landscaping. We require 15% and you are only coming up with 3%. You are about 12% deficient. What plans do you have for that? Mr. George: With my discussions with Mr. MacDonald, we proposed more landscaping in the back. He felt, at the time, that it would not be cared for. We would be happy to provide more landscaping as needed by the City of Livonia. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would that take away from parking? Mr. George: No it would not. Originally when this building belonged to Mr. Mitter he had front parking and we have not come before you and requested those same parking spaces. We have tried to beautify the area by providing landscaping to the north of the building or the Plymouth Road side and we would be happy to extend it to the curb if needed. 11394 Mr. Vyhnalek: We have no alternative but to say no on this tonight because you are within 500 feet of K-Mart. Mr. LaPine: I have a number of things. Number one, let's talk about the loading and unloading zone. In the back is that going to be a well? `. Mr. George: The trucks will enter from the west, go to the back of the building, circle and come directly to the east of the building. They will not hinder any parking spaces, any traffic flow or any customers that might be walking to the entrance. Mr. LaPine: When you say loading or unloading zone, 10 by 25. That is just the space where the trucks can park? Mr. George: Yes, that is where the trucks will load and unload. Mr. LaPine: He is going to come up the west side, circle around the back of the building and come here and park and unload and go back out to Plymouth Road. Is that correct? Mr. George: Correct. (Mr. George presented a prototype of what the building will look like). Mr. LaPine: The building that you are going to utilize is the one on the east side? Mr. George: Correct. Mr. LaPine: The one on the west side I assume you are going to rent that one out. Mr. George: Yes. Mr. LaPine: When this renovation is done, does it include the building on the west side? Mr. George: Yes it does. Mr. LaPine: Why don't you demolish the 24 foot building and it gives you parking? Mr. George: Unfortunately I am not a multimillionaire and this project is not feasible. It is not allowable to spend that type of money to tear down and to lose that space. Mr. LaPine: The problem is, you say there is a hardship. The hardship is of your own making. You bought a parcel here that is not compatible to what you want to do. We can all go along with some variations and we can go along with giving you some help but there are so many deficiencies on this parcel, we would be doing a disservice to the City of Livonia for allowing you to build here with all the deficiencies you have and apparently you don't want to tear down that building. It would help alleviate some of the problems. 11395 Maybe you could tear down both buildings and start from scratch. I don't know when you purchased this land but the boat people only moved out of there, you should have done a lot more investigation than what you did before you bought this parcel because it is just too small for what you want to do. If you are willing to tear down one of the buildings and maybe make some changes, you are still New going to have some violations but maybe we can look at some of these things to help you out but it is hard for me to believe that you have 17 parking spaces. You have 5 employees and that leaves you down to 12 spaces for customers but you are going to have at times more than 12 customers in that store. That site is just too small for what you want to do and that is the bottom line. Mr. George: How many times have you been in a party store where you have seen 12 customers? Mr. Engebretson: I am going to interrupt you on that. We are starting to discuss the merits and demerits of our ordinance. The ordinance exists and it guides what we do and if the ordinance is inappropriate, then we should initiate the proper action to change it but we have to live with the ordinance as it exists with this particular issue so I don't want any more discussion on whether or not the ordinance is correct or not. Mr. George: Let me answer that a different way. I am asking for a variance. In the variance I am asking for smaller parking spaces. If that would be granted, then we would have enough parking spaces. Mr. Engebretson: We don't grant the variance on parking deficiencies. That is the Zoning Board of Appeals. What we are dealing with here tonight is the waiver use that you have asked for to utilize the SDD and SDM licenses which you presently have in your existing store to move it to this store. Then we look into some of these other violations to determine whether or not it is appropriate to do that. That is what we are dealing with here tonight. Mr. Morrow: To sum it up Mr. George, you have come before Planning Commission tonight. We are charged with not to add to non-conforming buildings, which you have. We sit up here week after week asking people to come before us to make sure that the site supports the intended use and the parking and landscaping conforms to the ordinance. The thing you are asking us to do tonight with your waiver just isn't in the cards as far as I can see it. We can't have two sets of standards. As the Chairman said, right or wrong, we think they are right and you think they are wrong. We are in kind of a precarious position because we are being asked to do things for you that we are really precluded from doing and I hope you can understand that. We certainly had hoped that you would have consulted with somebody prior to purchasing this property because it is not our intent to work a hardship on you but you put us in almost an untenable position as far as you are concerned. I hope you can respect where we are coming from. We are not here to work a hardship on you but we have to carry out certain responsibilities. 11396 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, are you aware of whether or not New York Carpet World and/or K-Mart may have any parking spaces in excess of what they are required to allow Mr. George the opportunity to negotiate with them? Mr. Nagy: Not without doing a study. I am not in a position to say yes or no. New Mr. Engebretson: Mr. George are you aware of whether or not there is any excess parking over there according to the ordinance? Mr. George: They do have excess parking. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask you also if there is any possibility that you could excavate this wine cellar that you need underground under the existing building to try to not compound this parking problem any more than necessary. If you didn't have to add that structure on the back, if you used the other side of the building, and excavated a suitable wine cellar for you under there, I think we would move a long way towards solving a lot of the problems that we have been discussing. Mr. George: We have considered that. Again, it is cost prohibitive. We did go under the one building so we wouldn't have to reinforce any footings and it would be cost prohibitive to go under the other building and do footings and reinforce the building. That is why we extended 20 feet out. I do have to say another thing. We are in the bottle business and we are garbage men and in doing that, the 20 feet would only take away three spaces. I am really not trying to convince you gentlemen and you are right I really didn't do my homework, but logic tells me it can work and I am just trying to show you a plan that I think would be conducive to Livonia. I `y could go back, I could take the 2400 square feet, I could paint the building, etc. This is a very expensive hobby. I think it would be very advantageous to Livonia. Again, I am not trying to convince you. I just thought that this would be the right way to go. Instead of attracting the low end factory business, I thought it would be conducive to Livonia to attract the upper end. Mr. Engebretson: You indicated that it was your intent to spend a million dollars to implement this plan. I am just wondering, when I heard that number I was encouraged that you might be able to consider one of these alternatives because a million dollars would go a long ways towards putting a new front on that building and outfitting the interior with the proper materials you need to merchandise your product as well as building this addition and the wine cellar. Regarding the wine cellar, is it really necessary for all your wine? Mr. George: This is for all bordeaux. To answer that question, my family has unfortunately, due to me, gone in hock up to their ears because I entered into a venture in Livonia where I thought that it would go. We invested all our money there. We have now purchased this building on a fair trade. In other words we have traded a building we own for this building. We did not have the money to purchase `err• 11397 this building. We hope to acquire the rest of the money by selling the Elias Brothers building to move on with this venture. I can guarantee you gentlemen my name is not Governor Blanchard. I do not have that type of money. This was all done under creative financing. Very little money was taken out of my pocket. ��.• Mr. Engebretson: I just want you to know I would support what you are seeking here if you could do it within the confines of the ordinance. Even if there were several of these items that you couldn't comply with, if the Zoning Board of Appeals saw fit to give you relief there, I would support you too because I think that is a run down building and I think what you are proposing to do would be a significant upgrade to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the item that you refer to relative to serving the community in a safe community, I think our concern is to find such a way to do precisely that and you fall substantially short in meeting the ordinance in a number of ways so it is very difficult. In fact, as Ray Tent, pointed out impossible to support the issue as presented. I frankly wish I could support it and I would and I think there would be other support for you if we could do it within the ordinance but we don't have the authority to give approval for something of this nature where the ordinance is missed completely. Mr. LaPine: John, the parking he showed here, does that include the parking for whoever leases the other building? Mr. Nagy: Certainly. Mr. LaPine: So whoever leases that building would have to have small parking requirements. ..- Mr. Vyhnalek: What is going to be in this building? You wouldn't want another party store. Mr. George: Possibly a baseball card trading shop. Definitely a low intense use. We don't have any proposed tenant for the space but it would definitely be a low intense use, something that would not use a lot of cars. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is going to be tough. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. George, your present location for the Wine Barrel. Do you own that property? Mr. George: Yes I do. Mr. Gniewek: How much property is there approximately? Are you deficient in anything as far as that property is concerned? Mr. George: Parking spaces. Mr. Gniewek: You do have a good deal of area there to develop. Is that correct? Mr. George: Yes I do. 11398 Mr. Gniewek: You do have all your licenses at that particular location? Mr. George: Yes I do. Mr. Gniewek: It would seem to me that right now you are beating a dead horse and the million dollars you might want to invest on this particular '„`, piece of property would be better spent developing the site where you already have your licenses and your business established. If your business is going to be as quality as you say it is, the setback isn't going to make a difference. It is what you sell and how you sell it. People will drive a few more feet back to your store to buy what you present if it is presented properly. Mr. George: I agree with you if they could see the store or if they knew where it was. The concensus is even when we advertised and spent a lot of money doing it, the customers called us up and said "where are you". Even customers that know where we are at. I am sure you would all agree if you drove by the property. Hey, I passed the property and I didn't see you and I know where you are at. Everybody who was there had a hard time. You cannot see that store. It is a dead horse. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-2-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #11-484-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-9-2-31 by Richard George/Wine Barrel requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses within an existing retail building on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Milburn in the rr Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-9-2-31 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 general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with all of the special waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance particularly with respect to Sub-section 11.03(r)(2) which requires that there be at least a 500 foot separation between an existing SDM licensed facility and a proposed SDM licensed facility. 3) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed use as evidenced by the fact that the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.37 and 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to required size of parking spaces and the number of off-street parking spaces provided. 4) That the subject building is not being utilized to its fullest extent which would negate the need for a building addition and free ,r, that area up for additional off-street parking. 11399 5) That the building floor plan, as proposed, does not provide for a public entrance on the rear of the building but, instead, provides for the only public entrance to the building located such that it conflicts with the delivery truck service drive. 6) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with skewthe surrounding uses in the area. 7) Reference is made to letter dated November 8, 1990 from William J. MacDonald, Ordinance Enforcement Division of the Inspection Department setting forth all the deficiencies. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Kluver. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-10-2-33 by Ball & Cue requesting waiver use approval to utilize a tavern license in connection with an existing billiard room located on the north side of Joy Road between Harrison and Thorpe in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Bakewell 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 the waiver use proposal. We have also °j�► received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following comments and recommendations are submitted: 1) The parking spaces are less than ten feet in width. A ten foot minimum is recommended to lessen the chance of damage to other cars from entering/leaving a parking space and also from car doors being opened into adjacent cars. 2) Parking blocks or other curbing must be provided and maintained in front of the walks, both in front of the building and along the public walk on Joy Road. 3) It is recommended that the alley be paved. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient Parking - deficient 19 spaces. The primary traffic load for this type of business is after 5:00 p.m. when the majority of the other businesses are closed so we do not anticipate a parking problem. 2. A complete sign package should be submitted for review. 3. We have outstanding violations for all of the owners of this center to repave the damaged asphalt alley at the rear of each business. To date, there has been no compliance. Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner here. `w 11400 Jesse Nyikon, 6648 Winona, Allen Park: I own the Ball & Cue Billard Room. I am in direct competition with the Cushion & Cue on Schoolcraft and Inkster and I am at Joy and Inkster, two miles apart. I am not sure when he got his tavern license but he has been there for 20 years and he was on the verge of closing that down before he got his license, which was the first one in Michigan to come through. Now he is booming. I am just looking for a fair chance to compete '41111. in the same type of business. Two Fridays ago for instance, I check quite a bit when my business is down, at 10:00 on a Friday night I called over there. He has 35 tables and they were all full with six reservations and one of my customers went there and the first thing he saw when he entered the door was two waitresses with pitchers stacked on it. They couldn't get the beer fast enough to the tables. I have 22 tables. I had 10 tables going. I have people repeatedly coming in asking me if I serve beer and wine. I tell them no, they turn around and hit the door. A typical scenario, at his place people look at a Friday or Saturday night as somewhere to go. They say let's go to Cushion & Cue. That is their evening's entertainment. They go there. They walk in. They get a pitcher of beer. They will play an hour of pool. That is $5.00 and $5.00. Then they will get another pitcher of beer and play another round of pool. So they will spend two hours there and spend $20.00 and then the next day they say they were at Cushion & Cue and they had a great time. My place is looked at as some place to go on the way to go somewhere else. They will come in and get two pops for $1.50, play a half an hour of pool for $2.45 and they are gone and I can't understand why this is happening and it is simply a fact that people want to be able to drink. A lot of people have raised the question that there will be trouble `"" with the drinking mixed with the pool. If you go to the Cushion & Cue, he has no problems with that. If everyone isn't of drinking age at the table, no one is allowed to drink. You have to have a waitress that is obviously on the ball to keep track. In a bar people go there to drink first. If there is a pool table in a bar, they are already intoxicated and there is a problem. In a billiard room people don't say let's go down to the Ball & Cue to get loaded. They say let's go out and shoot some pool. The beer is there but that is just an added thing for them. Mr. Kluver: So you are asking for this waiver use so you can get a tavern license which you feel will help you to improve your business? Mr. Nyikon: Immensely. There have just been three new establishments open up in the last few months all with full liquor licenses. These are customers of mine who have been involved with pool for 20 to 30 years. One fellow is waiting in Canton to open a room pending a liquor license. Another one is waiting in Dearborn Heights and another one in Wayne. No one will even open a room now unless they get approval of a licuor license. The owner of Cushion & Cue, who has since opened a second room in East Detroit, with a second license, just tried to open a room in Rochester. Everyone that is involved in it will not attempt to open one without a liquor license. 11401 Mr. LaPine: How long have you been at that location? Mr. Nyikon: I have been there a year and a half. I worked the previous nine years in the Melvindale Fire Department. The establishment has been there since 1962. I am not a newcomer to the business. I didn't just drop in there and thought it would be an easy way to Nor go. I have been playing pool since I was 7. My dad had a billiard room in 1962 in Lincoln Park. I have a business degree from Michigan State. I was the billiard champion there and I have been involved with it my entire life. It is not an easy business to run. I am there 7 days a week. I am on top of everything. I don't take any bologna from any of the customers. Mr. LaPine: Is there any restriction on billiards? Do you have to be a certain age? Mr. Nyikon: You have to be 17 to come in the building unless you are with a parent or guardian. Mr. LaPine: The video machines. From what I read and seen on your plans, you are going to expand that from 9 to 10. Is that going to be a separate room? Mr. Nyikon: I am into some extensive renovations. I have put in three bathrooms. A handicapped and a two-stall ladies and a two-stall mens room in preparation for this at a cost of about $25,000, which I would stack those restrooms up against any restaurant in the City. I have used top quality materials. Tomorrow, hopefully, I am having my front redone. $9500 worth of windows put in, $4500 worth of block, new doors, all mirrored glass. The pinball room you were talking about I am going to have an all glass vestibule and then a separate room built which will be viewed from the `' control desk. I am having my entire opeation moved from the side wall to the front of the building. I am trying to make everything in there easy for my employees to work and to make it more comfortable for people coming in. Mr. LaPine: You have a food operation there now? Mr. Nyikon: Papa Romano supplies me with half baked pizza that we finish cooking. I bake hot dogs. I have ham and cheese and other microwave sandwiches. Mr. LaPine: Do you generate much garbage? Mr. Nyikon: I have approximately one garbage bag a night. I don't have a dumpster. Mr. LaPine: You say you have to be 17 to enter. The Chairman and I were down there last Saturday and surveyed the area. There was a nine year old playing the machines in there. There were a couple of 10 or 11 year olds playing the machines. They were not with any adults that I could see. There were maybe three people playing pool at the time. You say you are on top of things. How can you be on top of things if this is going on and then you want to have a beer and wine license when you have young kids in there. `ar. 11402 Mr. Nyikon: I can't be there every hour. Did you ask if their parents were there? Mr. LaPine: I am not going to ask if their parents are there. I see 9 year olds in a billiard room, which I don't think is right. Mr. Nyikon: I have a lot of parents who bring their kids in. They play pool and they let their kids play pinball while they are shooting pool. Mr. LaPine: The people playing billiards, in my opinion, were awfully young. Behind the building who is responsible for the wall? The wall is falling down. Mr. Nyikon: The wall is not falling down behind mine. Every individual tenant is required to maintain that wall. Mr. Tent: To follow up on what Mr. LaPine asked, the age breakdown. What is the age of the participants there? In other words, are they all 17 or 45? Mr. Nyikon: Other than the people that come in with their parents, I have a heavy concentration of 17 to 30 year olds. Under 21, probably 25%. I have a few customers that are in their 80's. Mr. Tent: Would you consider this a family operation. Would the mothers come? Would the wives come? Mr. Nyikon: That is what I am trying to do to push the whole operation towards more families, more dates, more people bringing their kids in. Saturdays and Sundays I have ladies days and kids days. The kids play free with a paying parent. The ladies play free with a paying gent. Mr. Tent: The kids are there and you are serving beer. How do you control that? Mr. Nyikon: I would control it the same way the Cushion & Cue is controlling theirs. It would be easier for me because I have 22 tables. He has 35. When they come in, you card them. If they are not 17, they can't come in to begin with. Then you mark down on each table the ages. If everyone isn't 21 at that table, then no one drinks. If there is any doubt whatsoever, then no one drinks. Mr. Tent: Do you plan on having tournaments there? Mr. Nyikon: Sure. I am being pestered constantly to have these tournaments but I don't want to do them until I get done with the renovations. I want to control them. Mr. Tent: The people you will have working there, will they all be over 21? Mr. Nyikon: Sure because I am having more luck with people over 21. Mr. Morrow: Could you fill me in on the shopping area. Is there any type of association there for businesses? I understand most of them own their own property and the parking lots connected with them. 11403 Mr. Nyikon: There is no association. This is the only strip mall in Livonia that has independent owners. We are running into a lot of problems in regard to paving the alley. When I came in there I said I would be glad to pave it the first year. I had a leak coming into the back of the building. I own my building, the fish and chips own their building and the bakery owns theirs and the gentleman who built this strip in 1962 owns all the rest. It was put off last year on the alley paving and it went to this year and I said let's try to get together because I guess this has been going on for years. They could never agree on who was going to contract it out, how much to pay, asphalt or concrete, whatever. One of the owners said it is not an alley, it is an easement and you cannot make me pay on an easement, take me to court and that is where it has sat. I called Bill MacDonald the day I heard about that and he said he would check into it and I never heard another word on that. Mr. Morrow: I realize you have only been there a year and a half but I can't think of another area in Livonia where the establishment puts so little back into the site, even with the housekeeping. I am not blaming you because you are only responsible for a small portion. Mr. Nyikon: I am trying to do the best I can in the location I am at. I am not a big shooter. I don't have tremendous financial backing but I will tell you where I am at. I have of my own money about $180,000, which is my life savings, tied up in this building. I bought it with the intention of doing this the right way. I have been trying since 1973 to open up a room. I have been to different cities and as you well know the image of pool in years past was very poor, so all your Councils were shooting them down. That is why there were no new rooms anywhere and all the old rooms went by the wayside so you ended up with three Cushion & Cues, Mr. Billard and one or two other ones and they were all nice family places with *ft. carpeting, clean, well-run, no drugs, no fights. You can't operate a thing like this and not find an occasional beer bottle in the parking lot or have somebody with a harsh word for the guy next to him. You are dealing with the public. You have a lot of young people. I go through it every day. A lot of the people don't like me because I am coming down on them all the time. Mr. Morrow: I was not questioning your ability to run this. I was coming from the direction of things we like to do. Whenever something comes before this Commission we try to see if there is any upgrading that is possible. Mr. Nyikon: I am going to try my best to do it right. See the plans there. This was supposed to already have been started last week. I am going to have all new planter boxes. I tried to put a big $5,000 sign out on Joy Road. The City wouldn't let me do that. I am trying to do it right. I am not in there for the short term but without the beer and wine I am going to be looking at a beautiful place but with nobody there. People want to drink. Mrs. Fandrei: We all understand your need and we all appreciate where you are coming from. We are coming from upgrading the property. My feeling is, and the sign is my pet peeve, the only way you are going to get the sign changed and upgrade your property, is to have 11404 the whole property upgraded. My recommendation would be that we table this and you encourage the renters and the other property owners to get together and work on getting this whole property upgraded. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for outside upgrading. Mr. Nyikon: I don't think it is fair for you to table this to try to make a 1`0111'' move on the sign. What I am trying to do is to fix up my place. If anything else I may embarrass one of my neighbors into doing something to upgrade theirs. I am the focal point. If I put in a nice place, it is going to do wonders for the strip and it may make somebody else look at what they have. I can't do this by myself. Mrs. Fandrei: Exactly, you can't do it by yourself. It is definitely going to be an asset to the strip but at the same time you can't do the change in the sign yourself. The sign is very important to your own establishment. Mr. Nyikon: I am not before you for the sign. I am here for survival and that is to get my beer and wine license. Mrs. Fandrei: We are trying to accomplish the whole thing for your benefit and the City. Mr. Nyikon: If I went there tomorrow and the sign was on the ground, I could care less. I would be happy to see the sign go down to tell you the truth because the sign has caused me nothing but grief. I don't think it is fair to put this burden on me and table my motion. Mr. Kluver: Again, the issue is the waiver of use. Mr. LaPine: Does Hope's Fish & Chips sell beer and wine? Mr. Nyikon: No they don't. Mr. LaPine: John, didn't we turn down a beer and wine license maybe a year or a year and a half ago for a billiard room on Eight Mile and Grand River? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Paul Sultana, 8901 Lathers: I live right behind the strip center. What I think should be done - I think the whole place should be torn down. There are rats. We called the City. They leave the garbage dumps open. The blackbirds get all the chicken bones and put them in our yard. It cost me $500 because my dog chewed the bone. This guy did a good job. He is the only guy I ever saw ever fix it but as far as liquor license, I don't know. When his door is open, I can't open my back door. The lady who lives three houses down she called me. I had some wood back there and she said I had rats. I said I don't have rats, the alley has rats. I took all the wood down. I called the City before about rats and they said put poison there. My dog caught a rat. I called the City and they said we can't do anything about it. I could hear the kids playing pool in the summertime. I am opposed to this petition. 11405 Mr. Engebretson: I think that the petitioner needs to understand that if this item were to be tabled, it would work to his interest because I think if this issue were dealt with, with all this negative information we have, it would almost surely end up with a strong denial. That would then go on to Council. However, I think you are on the right track with some good ideas. However, I think we still need to be Nurrealistic and we can't saddle you with the burden of that entire development. I think we could have this issue tabled where we could, in fact, have the Inspection Department go down there and check the alley conditions, that are deplorable. There is litter all over the place. It is not necessarily coming from your place. I think you could do yourself and the neighborhood a service by putting a dumpster back there. Many of your neighbors have dumpsters. I think if we did table this issue with the cooperation of the Inspection Department, and would have some further dialogue with you to get some further assurances that you do run a tight ship, and I believe you do, but I would like some further asurance that we aren't going to have beer and wine becoming readily available to youngsters creating problems. I think that is where Brenda is coming from and I hope that you understand that would not be done to put you at a disadvantage. That would be an asset to help you achieve your end result. Mr. Nyikon: In response to the gentleman's comments there. I have my trash bags in the alley and I go out there daily and if a trash bag is open, I put it in another trash bag. I trimmed all the bushes and trees and branches. I pulled out every weed by hand. I pick up trash from each direction and put it away. My walk is not tilted back. I can't wait until that alley is fixed. His comment about if it was hot and the door was open, I am putting in two exhaust fans and we have six smoke eaters. I am still having a problem with odors. That is why the back door is open. I have to put in "41110" two more exhaust fans. I would welcome anyone to go over there at my alley at eight o'clock in the morning and take a look at it. Margaret Starin, 8912 Harrison: I live the second house on Harrison, behind the stores. I go for a walk and pick up wine bottles and small liquor bottles and throw them in the trash. I have lived there for 34 years. I can't remember when the stores went in but we have had a terrible time with that alley. I don't understand why an inspector has ever passed that alley. Last summer, we had such a hot summer, and the garbage in that alley was overflowing on Sundays and it stunk so bad you couldn't open the windows. We have a lot of children in this area and we have an exit that goes out on Harrison and in the summertime we have a lot of children out there riding their bikes. We have a lot of blind spots. Children can't see if a car is coming. This is going to add to more traffic plus the noise in the parking lot with the loud radios. I don't think it is a good environment for children to go into, a place where there is drinking. I know the pool hall is nice but I am just against it for so many reasons. They have to clean up that area. Sometimes they come by and pick up the garbage at 1:30 at night or 4:00 in the morning and all you hear is a big clunk. 11406 Mr. Nyikon: If I was trying to do this in a different City miles apart from my competition, I would still be up here fighting tooth and nails. I am in Livonia fighting a competitor in Livonia, two miles away and I am just looking for a fair chance to show my stuff and I have heard from people that are familiar with both of them, that they are worried about me. This guy is a multi-millionaire and he is concerned about the competition I am going to give him, but I can't do it by myself. Mr. Kluver: We appreciate your competitive spirit but we still have an issue to deal with here which is a waiver of use issue for a Class C liquor license and some of the amenities that have come out during the conversation regarding your petition concerning the general conditions of the shopping center. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-10-2-33 closed. Mr. Kluver passed the gavel back to Mr. Engebretson. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #11-485-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-10-2-33 by Ball & Cue requesting waiver use approval to utilize a tavern license in connection with an existing billiard room located on the north side of Joy Road between Harrison and Thorpe in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-10-2-33 to the study meeting of December 4, 1990. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This petition has been tabled until the meeting of December 4, 1990. In the meantime Mr. Nagy please ask the Inspection Department to send an inspector over to that area and report on the shopping center in its entirety and at that meeting Mr. Nyikon we will want to discuss with you some of the fine points that were brought up at this meeting. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-8-3-8 by Michael Surma requesting to vacate a 6 foot wide private easement for public utilities as established across Lot 3, Richland Estates Subdivision, located north of Richland Avenue and east of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. 11407 Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained utilities within the easement in question. However, there appear to be Detroit Edison/Michigan Bell overhead facilities in this easement. Therefore, the above Now agencies should be contacted relative to their interests in the subject vacating petition. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no right to change in any way the dedication of this easement by the person who created the plat. This is a right which belongs to that person and all those within the subdivision. The language of dedication of the easement does not directly or indirectly give us authority to grant you the permission requested. Our rights are strictly to make use of the easement, not to change in any way the use of the easement. We do, however, object to the encroachment of this particular easement because of the close proximity of our existing overhead wires. If re-dedication of this easement is of interest to Michael Surma, this matter may be taken before a circuit court. Mr. Engebretson: Does that letter leave any room for any modification of the request of Mr. Surma to vacate a portion of this rather than the entire strip or would you say the objection applies to any and all? Mr. Nagy: Taking the letter at face value I think the Edison Company is saying it would apply to any and all unless financial arrangements could be made to relocate the overhead equipment. Mr. Engebretson: That being the case where does that leave us? Do we have any room to do anything other than to deny the request? Mr. Nagy: I think the easement is there for the public utility companies and we have an utility company that makes use of this and I think we have to respect their position on the matter. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come to the podium and tell us why you are making this request. Michael Surma, 34242 Richland: Lot 92b is landlocked. That is a 66 x 420 foot lot behind me. All I want to do is build a shed behind my garage. I am not going to use the whole six foot easement. All I want to use is four feet. Mr. LaPine: Why can't you just put the utility shed to the right of your garage? Mr. Surma: Because that will take away from my backyard. Mr. LaPine: How big is your property? Mr. Surma: 60 x 150. Mr. LaPine: How big of a utility shed are you talking about? 11408 Mr. Surma: 8 x 18. There is 10 feet between my property line and garage right now. I am just going to use 4 feet of easement. Mr. LaPine: Apparently the Detroit Edison is objecting to it. Their objecting to it puts us in an awkward position to approve it. You do have an alternative where you could put it. Granted you are going to fir.. reduce the backyard. I would be willing to go along with a tabling motion and you get together with Detroit Edison and see if there is some workable agreement. I don't see, frankly, how we can approve it as long as Detroit Edison is objecting. Mr. Engebretson: We can't speak for Detroit Edison. We do have an official letter from them voicing their objection and what Mr. LaPine is suggesting if you wanted to put this issue on hold to give you an opportunity to work this out with Detroit Edison, we would be more than happy to accommodate you. However, if you don't want to do that, it appears we have no alternative but to simply deny this request. Mr. Surma: Did Detroit Edison come out and survey the property or was it just over the phone. Mr. Engebretson: I have no idea. Mr. Nagy would you see that this gentleman gets a copy of that letter from Detroit Edison. Mr. Morrow: If he feels Detroit Edison is being unfair, of course, their objection precludes us from vacating. They did indicate you could take this to circuit court. That is an option too. Mr. Tent: That was what I was going to follow up on. If we were to table this I don't know what good that would do because Detroit Edison was very emphatic in their reply. They said they won't give up any of the area and they said if the gentleman wants to pursue this, he `'` could go to court. What good would we do by tabling this? Mr. Engebretson: It would accommodate a resident. Mr. Gniewek: How big is your garage? Mr. Surma: 22 x 22. Mr. Gniewek: And your addition is going to be? Mr. Surma: 8 x 18. Mr. Gniewek: It couldn't go alongside the garage? Mr. Surma: My whole backyard is landscaped. Mr. Gniewek: What you are telling me is that there is no other position for that addition except behind the garage. Mr. Kluver: Is there a possibility of building it in front of your garage? Mr. Surma: That would cause another problem. fir. 11409 Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you need that big of a storage shed? Mr. Surma: I do have two vehicles and a lawn mower. It is going to be my work shop and have all my garden equipment in the back. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #11-486-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-8-3-8 by Michael Surma requesting to vacate a 6 foot wide private easement for public utilities as established across Lot 3, Richland Estates Subdivision, located north of Richland Avenue and east of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-8-3-8 until the Study Meeting of December 4, 1990. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-9-3-9 by William F. Rockershousen requesting to vacate a 20 foot wide easement across property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Bakewell 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 the purpose of the vacating petition is to abandon an existing public water main on the Livonia Health Center site and construct a new water main east thereof. This office is currently requesting the owner to grant a new public water main easement to accommodate the new construction. While this office has no objections to the subject vacating petition, it is recommended that the final ordinance for this petition not be recorded until the new Grant of Easement noted above has been received through this office. We have received a second letter from the Engineering Department stating the owners of the Livonia Health Center have supplied this office with a new Grant of Easement to cover the public water system in question. Based on the above information, this office has no objections to proceeding with the above referenced vacating petition. William Rockershousen: I would like to ask the Commission to consider possibly, if you look favorably on this easement vacation, to waive the 7 day rule to allow our clients, Metro Medical Group, to proceed with construction as soon as possible. They have retained Walbridge Aldinger as the construction manager and they have the material on the job site. 11410 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-3-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ##11-487-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 13, 1990 on Petition 90-9-3-9 by William F. Rockershousen requesting to vacate a 20 foot wide easement across property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-9-3-9 be approved subject to the petitioner granting a new easement to accommodate the relocated water line for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public utilities in the area. 2) That the vacating of the easement is necessary in order to allow for a building addition. 3) That the existing water line is being relocated and will be accommodated by a new easement. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #11-488-90 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 regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 90-9-3-9 by William F. Rockershousen requesting to vacate a 20 foot wide easement across property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-9-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for more standards regarding outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies. 11411 Mr. Shane: For the sake of the audience, the Planning Commission with this petition is trying to determine whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance with respect to operations such as K-Mart, Builders Square, etc. who often display and sell plant materials and garden supplies outside. This ordinance amendment would provide additional standards and requirments, which would make the petitioners have to do additional kinds of things in order to continue to do those kinds of things. Since it is a waiver use, it means that it is prohibited unless approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council and along with the approval there are additional standards which they would be required to adhere to if this petition is approved. Mr. Engebretson: This item came about as a result of a request by two K-Mart stores and a K-Mart operation called Builders Square, who had both, on their own initiative, launched outdoor sales activities for garden materials and then took in other items ranging from swimming pools to chest of drawers and other miscellaneous kind of things and these sales cluttered up sidewalks and in one instance cluttered up an entrance to the building. So the purpose of this ordinance change is to make it crystal clear to all operators of retail businesses to define the rules very specifically as to what is okay and what is not okay in terms of these outdoor sale kind of activities. I guess I would just like to quickly read through these items for the benefit of those in the audience and at home. Certain additional open-air business uses as herein specified: (1) Retail sales and/or display of plant materials not grown on site and sales of lawn furniture, playground equipment and other home garden supplies, providing such use is temporary and carried on between April 1 and October 1; and provided further that: a. Such use shall not be located within two hundred feet of any '`r intersection of two or more major thoroughfares as indicated on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. b. Such use shall be located in specifically designated areas so as not to interfere with safe vehicular and pedestrian access. c. Except for sales and or display taking place on a pedestrian walkway, the sales and/or display area shall be enclosed with a fence of a type as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, which fence shall be located and maintained on the boundaries of such sales and display area. d. Such retail sales and/or display taking place on any walkway providing pedestrian access to the adjacent building shall be limited to bedding plants (flowers and vegetables) and potted shrubs; provided, however, that such uses shall be conducted in a manner that will insure that the walkway is sufficiently free of obstructions at all times so as to provide safe and direct pedestrian access to and from the building. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-6-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was ##11-489-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-9-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to 11412 amend Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for more standards regarding outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-9-6-7 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment is needed so as to provide the City with additional control with respect to the location and nature of outdoor sales and display of certain specified merchandise. 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide additional standards and guidance to local merchants with respect to outdoor sales and display of plants and garden supplies. 3) That the nature of outdoor sales and display of merchandise is such that additional standards and requirements are necessary in order to properly locate and control the 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-490-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-8-1-21 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft, west of *04111. Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to OS be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #11-491-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 16, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-21, and pursuant to a request by William Roskelly dated November 9, 1990, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 90-8-1-21 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft, west of Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to OS. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was 11413 #11-492-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 611th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 30, 1990 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: None Nifty ABSTAIN: Kluver, Fandrei ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #11-493-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road west of Levan in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from PO-I to RUF; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was 'NW #11-494-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Alex Lukasik for a satellite disc antenna on property located at 18461 Gill Road in Section 9 subject to the following condition: 1) That the site plan and specifications submitted by Alex Lukasik for a satellite disc antenna at 18461 Gill Road are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: Kluver, Vyhnalek, Fandrei ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was 11414 #11-495-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Townsend Neon Inc. for Big Boy Restaurant to erect a wall sign at its new location in the Wonderland Center be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign graphics for Big Boy Restaurant at Wonderland Center Nom. approved shown on the plan prepared by Townsend Neon, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the sign would be illuminated only during the hours of operation. 3) That there be no window signage whatsoever. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-496-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-11-8-16 by the Livonia Housing Commission requesting approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a 120 unit senior citizen housing facility on the west side of Newburgh between Plymouth and Amrhein in Section 30, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan for Newburgh Village as shown on Sheet 1 of Project #90045 dated 11/5/90 prepared by R. 0. Scramsted and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4111. 2) That the Building and Floor Plan as shown on Sheet A-1, Job #90.20 prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 612th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on November 13, 1990 was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary 1 , ATTEST: 0 ,4i4 4 Jac Engebrelson, hairman jg