Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-08-15 10785 MINUTES OF THE 584th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA `fir On Tuesday, August 15, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 584th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Herman Kluver R. Lee Morrow Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann* Members absent: Donald Vyhnalek Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, were also present. Mr. LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-6-1-23 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Shane 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 this rezoning proposal. The petitioner was not present and there was no one in the audience to speak for or against this petition. Mr. Engebretson: I would recommend we close the public hearing and table this item with no date certain and schedule only when the petitioner has an opportunity to come in and tell us what is on his mind. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy have you heard from the petitioner? ft. Mr. Nagy: I cannot explain the petitioner's absence. 10786 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-1-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #8-175-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Petition 89-6-1-23 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-6-1-23. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: McCann, Vyhnalek Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver: To the Planning Director. At this point would you contact the petitioner or have one of your staff contact him to see what the circumstances are so at the next study meeting we can have some resolution? Mr. Nagy: We will contact the petitioner. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-6-1-24 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Six Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-6. Mr. Shane 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 this proposal. Mr. LaPine: Since this is a rezoning by the City Planning Commission, I will go to the audience. Arthur Pollack of Milwaukee Investment Company, Owner of Property: I am very shocked at this because it was my understanding at the last study session that this meeting was going to be set up for suggestions of how to rezone it and now I find it seems to be almost predetermined that the Planning Commission wants it R-6. We have come up with a plan on a single story office building which we would like to present. Mr. LaPine: We looked at this property at a previous study session at which you attended and this is why we are having a public hearing tonight and if you want to give us your reasons why you feel it should not be R-6, then you are free to do that. Mr. Pollack: I stated many times we feel the property, because of it being so `my close to Middlebelt Road, is not good for residential. There should be another use for it besides that. I think I stated that at the last public hearing here and the meeting at the Council and also your last study meeting. 10787 Mr. LaPine: Is that your reason why you feel we shouldn't go R-6? Mr. Pollack: That is right. Mr. Tent: Mr. Pollack we did discuss this at great depth at the study session with some of the neighbors and yourself and the thing that impressed me, as one Commissioner, is the fact we do have too much professional service type office buildings in that particular corridor and this particular type of land would be more conducive to residential development so it was determined that probably a multi-family use would be appropriate and so it has been studied and we have taken it into account your concerns and now we have come up with this particular recommendation. Mr. Pollack: It was my understanding when I left the study session that I was going to have some drawings done of what we would recommend for office use and I do have a presentation to make but it is strictly on a one story office instead of a two story office building. Mr. Tent: This is a public hearing and we can see what your proposal is. Mr. Pollack passed out his drawings to the Commissioners. Mr. Pollack: We didn't try to go into anything elaborate. We sketched the building as a residential facade, which gives the residential appearance, which seemed to be the objection before when we had the two-story very modern looking building. We plan on using approximately 23% of the land per building and we have parking `r, for 47 cars, which is more than what is required for this type of use. We feel it is a good section for office and we could immediately put the building to use. We would be developing a building that we felt we could rent and it does give the appearance of a residential type building although it is an office building. It is our feeling this is the best use. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Pollack, if you were to develop this and this were to go to an office type of situation, would you participate in the leasing or would you participate in having your offices in this building? Mr. Pollack: Our plan is to have part of the building for our offices. Mr. Kluver: What percentage? Mr. Pollack: Probably about 20%. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Pollack, where is your office presently? Mr. Pollack: We are still in the Lafayette Building in downtown Detroit, which we sold one and a half years ago. Mrs. Fandrei: So you are in Detroit and would be moving here so we would be getting a new tenant. `taw Mr. Morrow: Mr. Pollack had indicated he thought that piece of property was not suitable for R-6 but it is bordered almost totally by multiple apartments and my feeling is this is a stepping down of 10788 the multiple use and one of the reasons I support that action in the area is the duplex type of use we have further south on Plymouth Road seems viable and it is certainly filling a need within the City. It is a tough piece of property to rezone given its size so the principal reason I support it, is that the parcel just seems to fit the proposed zoning which is not so intense as multiple housing. Mr. Engebretson: I wanted to get into the record the fact that while Mr. Morrow, was attempting to share with Mr. Pollack his reasoning for what is going on here, Mr. Pollack walked out of the room. I would also like to comment and expand on Mr. Morrow's comment that Mr. Pollack takes the position because this is so close to Middlebelt, it is unsuitable for residential housing. That clearly shows he is not aware of what is going on in that area in terms of what is suitable and not suitable on Middlebelt Road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-1-24 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #8-176-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Petition 89-6-1-24 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Six Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-1-24 be approved for W. the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a small number of a type of dwelling unit that is not readily found in the City. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will cause only a very slight increase in housing density in the area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a reasonable use for the subject property which will be in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-7-2-40 by 5-Newburgh Deli requesting waiver use approval to operate a ° delicatessen with customer seating within an existing building "ft.y located on the west side of Newburgh Road north of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 10789 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient parking. The center would require 85 spaces with the restaurant use. There are 68 spaces provided; deficient by 17 spaces. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to ,om. this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no objection, however, because this would effect a change in use group classification from mercantile (M) to assembly (A-3), the tenant separation walls are required to conform in providing fire grading(s), per B.O.C.A. 1987, 313.1.2 and Table 902. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable but the following alterations are recommended: (1) Widen the entrance to 24 or 25 feet. (2) Place curbing or equivalent on the north line of the east parking area. (3) Provide lighting for the parking lot. Jean Kassa, 15367 Newburgh: The only thing that I have a question about is originally when we decided to petition for this we looked at an old site plan for a Chinese Restaurant that was going to be in the same mall that we are in and at that time they were refused because they petitioned for 70-80 seats and Planning Commission told them it would be okay if they petitioned for 26 seats, that parking would be adequate for 26 seats, so I don't understand why now we are required to have 85 parking spaces. Mr. Nagy: Based upon your plan, the Ordinance Enforcement Division indicates a requirement of 85 spaces and there are currently 68 on the site. New Ms. Kassa: There is no real need to enlarge the mall as it presently stands. It is bordered by residential on two sides and commercial on the other. There is no opportunity to expand the parking. Mr. LaPine: Have you rented this property or signed a lease as yet? Ms. Kassa: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Where did you get this information that the Planning Commission said? Ms. Kassa: When we originally went to inquire into it, we had seen a plan for a Chinese Restaurant that was going to be in the same mall. The Planning Commission didn't approve it because they were petitioning for 70-80 seats. There is quite a lot of parking. It is in the back but it is there. A lot of it is never used. Mr. Morrow: I don't recall, maybe we can ask the Planning Director to help us out, but he may have been asking for that and that might have been one of the reasons we didn't want that use in there. I believe he wanted to see if he could get out from under a lease he had signed because the real estate agent had indicated no problem with a restaurant in that area. As one Commissioner, we had a great deal of problems with putting that use in that area. It would seem like we are getting a variation of the same theme on this petition. I am certainly not directing that to you but if they are giving you certain information to be steered by, the best place is to contact the Planning Department because they 10790 will have all the details connected with it and we don't want to see you going to a lot of expense based on information that is lacking or erroneous at best. Ms. Kassa: So in order to implement 26 seats I would have to have a parking lot with 85 spaces among other things. `r Mr. Morrow: In total. Mr. LaPine: John, is that 85 spaces for the whole center? Mr. Nagy: Yes. We require for seating alone 13 plus an additional 1 for each employee and the balance of the parking would be made up to satisfy the off-street parking for all the other uses in the center. Mr. LaPine: Do I have to assume from the letter we got from the Inspection Department that there is deficient parking there now? Mr. Nagy: There is sufficient parking for retail but not for restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: If they operated as a deli without seating, are they okay? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: You are open for business? Ms. Kassa: Yes for one week. If we would have understood at the time, we would only have petitioned for 13 seats with the existing amount F,` of parking. Mr. LaPine: John, they could have 13 seats and meet the ordinance? Mr. Nagy: Rather than just guess at it, and I don't want her to go away with another impression and then we find that too might be wrong, we should go out and make a site inspection and determine all the uses that are currently in the center and available parking and then we can make an exact determination for you. It appears 13 is a reasonable figure but I wouldn't guarantee it. Mrs. Fandrei: Would you be happy with 13? I know you would prefer more. I understand that, but would 13 be better than none? Ms. Kassa: Yes, because the reason we want seating is not so much we feel we are going to draw 100 people into the place but it would give our customers the option of being able to come in and sit down. Mrs. Fandrei: I am familiar with the location and my feeling would be that most of your business would be carry out anyway. Ms. Kassa: Right. It is at this point, but I think it could help to increase our business. It is very difficult to see because of where it is located. Mrs. Fandrei: What is the largest number of people you get during peak time? 10791 Ms. Kassa: It is too early. I can't say. The potential could be quite a few. Mr. Morrow: You signed a lease and went into a business. Was that influenced by what they told you about the Planning Commission feelings? Ms. Kassa: The landlord had nothing to do with the Planning Commission. My sister and I came down to the Planning Department and looked at the site plan of the Chinese Restaurant that never got through and on the site plan it does say you cannot petition for more than 26 seats. I think we still would have opened our business either way but this would have helped. Trudy Hogrefe, 15382 Richfield: I am right behind the complex, actually to the west of the complex, and I was here for the Chinese Restaurant and I thought we had gotten rid of the restaurant problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but once they let someone have a restaurant with seating, we are stuck with it. Mr. LaPine: That is not necessarily true. Ms. Hogrefe: How did Burger Fresh get in there without anyone being notified. Nobody in the neighborhood ever got notification and Burger Fresh went in there. Now they are in there and we haven't had anything to say about that. When I was here before I brought pictures of the dumpsters and a lot was done about that and I appreciate that but now we have two dumpsters that are always open. They never close them and we do have a problem with all the traffic. Also we are interested in hours of business because Sundays and evenings we do get some kind of peace around there and I would just hate to have a business that is open all day Sunday. We feel the traffic problem is bad on Newburgh and just in general we don't think we need another eating place there. Mr. Engebretson: Ms. Hogrefe, the property is zoned such that the delicatessen is a permitted use. Ms. Hogrefe: It doesn't have to be approved? Mr. Engebretson: What they are asking for is basically changing the classification from a delicatessen use to a reataurant use and that does require approval and that goes back to Burger Fresh. They were strictly a carry out type of business and they didn't have seating and that was a permitted use. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is clear from Mr. Nagy's earlier comments that an inspection is very much in order here. I think we have heard a number of points here tonight to give us justification for that. Ms. Hogrefe: Who would we see about the wall that separates the commercial from residential? I brought this to your attention before. It is 3 1/2 feet high on business side. It is 5 foot high on our side. Now, either the City failed when they graded the whole subdivision or they failed with this building complex so we are barely down below this wall and when cars come to park back there, we get all the noise and I really don't feel like I am living in a residential neighborhood. 10792 Mr. LaPine: I would say call the Inspection Department and file a complaint and they will send out an Inspector to look into it but it has been there for a long time now and it must have been approved by the Engineering Department. Ms. Hogrefe: I was in before the center and every time they redo the parking lot, they raise the parking lot a few inches and pretty soon we will be living in a hole. Mr. LaPine: We will ask Mr. Nagy of the Planning Department to make a field inspection and see what he can find out. Mrs. Recker, 37481 Lancaster: I have lived there for 25 years and that whole shopping complex is an abortion. I can attest to the problem with the traffic flow. That wall has come done twice in 25 years. I cannot imagine them getting parked cars back in there and have the kind of trucks that come in and deliver things and still be able to use that parking lot. It is just not feasible to have parking for a restaurant. Joan Jemmoa: I am the other partner. I would like to clarify two things. Number one, we are asking for seating only as a convenience. We are not a full size restaurant. People who come in to us at lunch time, pick up something, stay a half an hour and leave. Secondly, as far as garbage problem, I took out the garbage tonight and I did close the dumpster. We have people in our center who use our dumpsters. I have no control over them. We are trying to keep up the property. We are not trying to promote a full service restaurant. It is strictly a convenience for our customers. We do quite well with our carry out and delivery but we would like to be able to downscale our delivery because of the cost of it and also convenience. Mr. LaPine: Do you have your own dumpster? Ms. Jemmoa: Yes we do. Mr. Tent: What are your hours of operation? Ms. Jemmoa: We are closed on Sunday. We are currently open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Saturday we are open 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. We are experimenting with our hours. We are trying to see what our evening business will be. Mr. Tent: As a deli you would still be able to operate and you would have no problem operating as a deli? If push came to shove, you would be happy with a deli? Ms. Jemmoa: If you are asking would I be content without the seating, I would have to say no because if you don't give your customers options, they don't come to you. We have had people verbally request seating at our establishment and they have said to us if you had seating, I would be here every day. Mr. Tent: How long is your lease? Ms. Jemmoa: Currently it is for six years, I believe. 10793 Mr. Morrow: One of the reports talked about the wall being brought up to B.O.C.A. codes? Mr. Nagy: The interior walls. The separation wall between this tenant and other tenants because of possible cooking of food. '4111. Mr. Morrow: It is not required as a deli but if this waiver were to be granted, the landlord would have to bring the walls up to specifications. Do you know if your landlord is aware of that requirement and would he be willing to spend that money? Ms. Jemmoa: I don't know. I wasn't aware of it. Mrs. Sobolewski: John, even if they had 12 or 13 seats and it was a sit down restaurant, would the wall still be required to be there? Mr. Nagy: The use group changes regardless of the number of seats. They would not require it for a deli but would require it if it became a restaurant. Mr. Tent: As one Commissioner, I look at this proposal and I feel strongly for the people. I would like for them to have a sit-down restaurant but in this particular case seeing the site plan and looking over the situation I feel its use as a deli is probably its best use at this time. Its use as a sit-down restaurant I would be opposed to it. My feeling is if the petitioner would like to continue on with the present operation as a deli, they have my vote, but to expand it to a sit-down restaurant, I think at this particular site we can't put another restaurant at that site. Nor Mrs. Fandrei: At this point, I would like to see you get as many seats as are allowable for the parking spaces you have and I would like to give our department an opportunity to evaluate this for our petitioner and if it would take a tabling for two weeks then that is what I would like to see done. Mr. Tent: In response to Mrs. Fandrei, I think Mr. Morrow covered it quite properly when he indicated the condition of that site now. The landlord would have to be responsible for upgrading that particular establishment to accomodate this restaurant and we have had no response in the past from what it looks like now and I think we are just prolonging this matter. At this point I think we are just chasing a dead horse. Mrs. Fandrei: If we table this petition for two weeks, that would give the landlord, the tenant and the department an opportunity to look at the total picture. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, the new proposed ordinance that we have been talking about for restaurants, wouldn't they be allowed 12 seats under the new ordinance if Council ever approves it. Mr. Shane: Only if they can meet the parking requirements. r„r, Ms. Jemmoa: Concerning the wall. What is the difference as far as the usage goes as to the height of the wall? How does the wall affect the usage? 10794 Mr. LaPine: What wall are you talking about? Ms. Jemmoa: Whatever wall you are talking about that would stop us from getting this usage. Which wall are you referring to? Mr. Nagy: We are talking about interior wall between one tenant space and another space. Mr. Morrow: I don't want to anguish over your needs and the neighbors concerns if we have a landlord that may say I am not going to put that wall in because you could have a serious problem. I have no idea what that wall will cost but it doesn't sound like it is inexpensive. We have already heard the concerns about the conditions and maybe doing something about getting his site back up to Livonia's specifications so I guess I have no problem with a tabling motion at this time. Mr. Engebretson: One last comment. Regarding this interior fire wall. It is not necessarily incumbent upon the landlord to do that. That is generally in the class of a leasehold improvement and I think the owners of the business have to contact that landlord and see what they are willing to do but I think they have to be willing to bear the cost of this wall so you might want to be looking into that with the landlord to determine if this is a very expensive proposition or inexpensive. I just don't want to leave you with the impression that it is the landlord's responsibility because typically that is the lessee's responsibility. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-7-2-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-177-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Petition 89-7-2-40 by 5-Newburgh Deli requesting waiver use approval to operate a delicatessen with customer seating within an existing building located on the west side of Newburgh Road north of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-7-2-40 to August 22, 1989 to give the petitioner, the landlord and the Planning Department a chance to look at the needs of this property. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-7-2-43 by Jim Meinershagen for Shorr Electronics requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for the installation of automotive electronic equipment on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. `r. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the waiver use 10795 proposal. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no objection to the proposal. A letter is in our file from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable as submitted but they recommend the placement of parking blocks or curbing along the front of the parking spaces 'tow to prevent encroachment on walks and non-parking areas. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The site plan does not indicate sod, sprinklers or new plantings. 2. The entire parking lot will have to be resurfaced and restriped. 3. The post for the old ground sign must be removed. 4. The mansard on the east side of the building is in poor condition and should be removed. They further state they have discussed this with Mr. Meinershagen and he has assured them that all of these items will be taken care of. * 8:25 - Mr. McCann entered the meeting at this time. Jim Meinershagen, Shorr Electronics: What we are proposing to do here is basically to relocate our business from its present location, which is on the south side of Plymouth Road between Inkster and Middlebelt, which is not an adequate facility, and we are proposing to relocate it into what is known as the Livonia Tire building. This building, as you know, has been vacant for sometime and we have secured conditional purchase agreements both on the building and the adjacent property that is to the east of it. That purchase is conditional upon our getting necesary approval from the City of Livonia to operate the business. The nature of our business is automotive electronics, which means we sell car telephones, car stereos, etc. and install them in the customer's vehicle inside the premises. That is the purpose and the need for a waiver use so we can do that installation. Mr. Meinershagen presented a proposed site plan to the Commissioners. Mr. Meinershagen: We are also working with the City to buy the property at the rear of the petitioned property. That would allow the reassembly of the three pieces of property to put it back together the way it was. It is our intention not only to use the existing building but then we would sell off excess property to a compatible use that would fit into the zoning classification. We do not have anybody identified at this point in time. We wanted to press ahead to get the necessary approval to develop this site. One of the comments was we had not submitted a landscape plan. Our landscape plan was submitted to the Planning Department yesterday. Our architect had been in discussions with the people in the Planning Department to make sure we were within the necessary requirements as far as landscaping goes. There are a large number of trees on rear of property. We would do sodding in front. That would be sprinklered and also some small trees and junipers, etc. would be in front of building. Another comment was we would have to do some repaving of the parking lot. That would be done as it would be developed for our use of this building. It would be repaved. I have pictures of Mickey Shorr retail facility we recently developed in Farmington Hills. The purpose of this is 10796 to show you how the exterior treatment of the building would look. We do utilize a yellow awning that has printing on it that says Mickey Shorr, etc. Also we use a beige color on the building. Mr. Meinershagen showed elevation plans and how interior of building would look. Mr. Meinershagen: It is approximately 4200 square feet. We would utilize front portion as sales and exhibit area. The rear portion would be used as an installation area. We would have five installation bays proposed inside. Traffic would come from the easterly side of the building and exit at the rear. Mr. McCann: Could you go back to the landscape plan. You said you are looking at selling off the easterly portion. Are you planning on having a separate drive for that or are you planning on using a common access? Mr. Meinershagen: Using a common access. Mr. McCann: So you are planning on the greenbelt provided there to remain? You would share your access? Mr. Meinershagen: Yes the greenbelt would remain. We would share our curb cut. What this shows is what has been paved previously. Mr. McCann: Are you planning a separate curb cut or are you planning on expanding it as one development? `r Mr. Meinershagen: One development and one curb cut. The intention is to have one center drive. Mr. Tent: Are you considering putting in one of your ABC Warehouses? Mr. Meinershagen: No, there is not enough room. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Meinershagen, needless to say we are pleased to see the present property upgraded. I have one question. John, have you seen the landscape plans? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Does it meet requirements and is that the total property as it is right now? Mr. Nagy: Yes it does meet the requirements and it is the total property as it is right now. Mrs. Fandrei: If he were to sell off the extra portion, then the landscaping requirement would change? Mr. Nagy: Yes it would change. He would have to meet all of the landscape requirements on the property he is retaining and that would be evaluated at the time the proposed lot split would come to pass. We would take that into account so as not to create a landscape deficiency. 10797 Mrs. Fandrei: That would also lead to the surfacing of the parking area. Are you planning on resurfacing the total area or are you only going to surface what you need for parking. Mr. Meinershagen: We are only going to surface what we need for parking. Mr. Tent: The parent company is ABC Warehouse, is that correct? Mr. Meinershagen: That is correct. Mr. Tent: I am happy something is going to happen with this piece of property and we are going to have a user but the track record of ABC Warehouse disturbs me. It would certainly be my position as one Commissioner, to hold you to the entire site plan. Never would I like to see this facility look as bad as the one at Joy and Inkster. If I would vote for this particular project, I would make certain that the parking lot is taken care of, that the landscaping would be taken care of, that the Ordinance Enforcement Division would follow up on it and then I would feel comfortable in allowing ABC Warehouse to use this property. Mr. Meinershagen: We acquired the store at Joy and Inkster in 1982 or 1983 but only recently the company began to initiate the process of upgrading both internal and exterior of our stores. There is quite a difference in our newest store at Ten Mile and Southfield in Southfield than what you are referring to at Joy Road and Inkster. Mrs. Sobolewski: Jim, besides radios and carphones and stereos, is there anything else sold within the building? Mr. Meinershagen: Radar detectors, cruise control, all electronically oriented. Mrs. Sobolewski: Are they all automobile oriented? Mr. Meinershagen: Yes, all automobile related. Mrs. Sobolewski: What are your hours of operation: Mr. Meinershagen: Evenings, Monday through Friday, until 9:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. We will be closed on Sunday. Mrs. Sobolewski: Installation goes on in those time periods? Mr. Meinershagen: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: Are any automobiles stored outdoors? Do you try to complete all of your customer's orders by the end of the day? Mr. Meinershagen: For me to say never would any cars be left on the premises overnite would be wrong, however 99.9% of customer's orders are handled each day. It is not heavy duty repair work where cars do stay for extended periods of time. Generally it could be accomplished in an hour or two. 'sow, Mr. Engebretson: If there were a need to keep a car overnight, would there be a problem with storing it inside the building? 10798 Mr. Meinershagen: Generally that is what is done. It is self serving. We are interested in protecting our customer's vehicle and making sure it won't get damaged or stolen Mr. Engebretson: You wouldn't have any problem with that being a stipulation of ``r approval that overnight storage would be within the building? Mr. Meinershagen: I would not have a problem with that. Mr. Engebretson: Does all installation work occur inside the building? Mr. Meinershagen: It is all supposed to occur inside the building. One of our reasons for relocation of present facility is it is not adequate. We can only work on three cars. This will give us room to work on five cars. We don't intend to and we don't plan on doing work outside the building. Mr. Morrow: You had indicated you had an option to purchase this depending on the outcome of this, is that correct? Mr. Meinershagen: Yes. Mr. Morrow: You were aware there are past taxes due on this property? Mr. Meinershagen: That is factored in as far as the purchase agreement is structured. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-7-2-43 closed. slew On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #8-178-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Petition 89-77-2-43 by Jim Meinershagen for Shorr Electronics requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for the installation of automotive electronic equipment on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-7-2-43 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, as revised, marked sheet CE-1 dated 8-11-89 prepared by Building Design and Drafting Services, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet A-2 dated 7-28-89 prepared by Building Design and Drafting Services, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. `.• 4) That all recommendations from the Inspection Department and the Police Department that were read into the record shall be complied with. 10799 5) All work shall be performed inside the building and there shall be no outside storage of cars. 6) Any mechanical units on roof shall be screened and no additional units shall be allowed on top of building. 7) The window signage shall be limited to 25%. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 4) That the approval of this petition will provide for the occupancy and upgrading of a building and site that has been vacant for an extended period of time. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Whispering Hills Subdivision to be located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Shane 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 Department of Parks & Recreation stating their department finds no problems with the Preliminary Plat as submitted. We also have received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objections to the development of this subdivision contingent upon the installation of an approved water supply. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating they will require a ten foot wide dedication for St. Martins Avenue in association with the previously dedicated roadway. Further, they will require a public sidewalk along the Newburgh Road frontage. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Division of Police stating they recommend the following: 1. No drives to access Newburgh Road. 2. Include sidewalks along Newburgh Road. 3. Widen Newburgh to conform to a 5-lane, 60 foot width pavement. Ernie Bourassa, 17570 Ellen Dr. and Michael Priest, 14655 Riverside, %oft, Petitioners: Michael Priest: The subdivision is proposed for 90 foot wide lots with 40 foot front yard and we are proposing 22 lots, We plan to build homes starting at $170,000 and up. 10800 Mr. McCann: Will you have sufficient room on the lots facing the west along Newburgh Road to build a berm or some type of landscape area between the homes and the main roadway? Mr. Priest: Yes, we plan a 25 foot landscape easement. *m. Mr. McCann: Will there be some type of berm or barrier there? Mr. Priest: Yes. Mr. McCann: Would there be a sidewalk going along there? Mr. Priest: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: How will the homes you are building compare in size and character with those that are in the neighborhood? Mr. Priest: The homes we will be building will be generally the same size as Willow Woods or a little larger. There are a couple of models that they have that we are not going to provide. Mr. LaPine: What would the average square foot be of the homes? Mr. Borasso: It would vary. The ranches would probably be over 1700 square feet and the colonials about 2,000 square feet. William Mortom, 35117 West Chicago: I presently have a purchase agreement on a home in Willow Woods Subdivision for $170,000. The four homes that are referred to as the model homes for Willow Woods '4111. Subdivision, I am purchasing one of them. I want the Commission to understand that when these cars leave the proposed subdivision that the headlights of the cars are going to be directly on the four homes. That is the four homes on St. Martins. I was told when I purchased the homes that there would be no development in this area. Now the trees fall and then I am told that now cars are going to be coming at my home with headlights. Now I have no problem with development in Livonia and for developers to make profits but when you infringe on another subdivision in order to make a profit something is wrong. It seems to me there could be an entrance off Newburgh Road. Why is this developer proposing to go through another subdivision in order to reach his own? Mr. LaPine: I don't think he is going through another subdivision, St. Martins comes off Newburgh Road and he has an entrance to his subdivision off St. Martins. Mr. Mortom: I grant you that but St. Martins was built for Willow Woods Subdivision. Mr. LaPine: Without St. Martins your subdivision wouldn't have access either. Mr. Engebretson: Who told you that the land to the north wouldn't be developed? I would be curious who told you such a thing? Mr. Mortom: I was told by people who were representing the Angelo DiPonio project that there would be no development as far as they knew in that area. 10801 Mr. Engebretson: And you believed that? Mr. Mortom: When I speak to someone who wants to sell me a $170,000 home in Livonia, I don't expect them to lie to me. Mr. Engebretson: Well they did. I understand your concern, but no real estate '`��► person or developer has the right to speak for what some other land owner is going to do with his property. It is naive to believe some land is not going to be developed unless it is a City owned park. You should have come to the City and taken the time to come in and find out. Mr. Mortom: I also was told that there would be no entrance coming through St. Martins to the new subdivision. Mr. LaPine: Unfortunately you got some bad information. Mr. Mortom: I agree with you. That is why we are all here. Mr. Morrow: If we look at some of the plans that are already approved and will be approved, you will notice there are quite a few areas where lights are going to run into houses. In any subdivision there are houses that will be hit by lights. That is one of the reasons we have plats and streets. You have to work the streets so they all tie in together. One of the options the developer has is coming off St. Martins for his subdivision and it is a public street. If that has an impact on your decision, you may want to reevaluate. Have you started to build yet? Mr. Mortom: The home has already been built. *gm. Mr. Morrow: Do you feel strongly enough to try to get out of it based on what you hear tonight? Mr. Mortom: I would feel differently if this is allowed, although it's not really going to affect me that much. I feel sorry for the third and fourth homes. Mr. Morrow: It is unfortunate but that happens all over the City and it is something that does occur and without it we can't build subdivisions. Mr. Mortom: It could be fixed if an entrance came off Newburgh. The reason that entrance is there off St. Martins is so that builder can build a few more homes to make profits. He does so by infringing on another subdivision. Jim Amo, 37325 St. Martins: I am the third house down. I object to this. I think it is wrong. Nothing against the builders but the fact is that this design benefits them, not me, not the rest of the people who bought the homes, not the rest of the homeowners who want to remain exclusive. They don't want to have their subdivision with another subdivision. They don't want to have 60 homes in their sub and another 22 using the same entrance. They don't want the construction traffic to be coming through there for another three years. They don't want the school bus coming to pick up the kids with so much traffic. There is 10802 something wrong here. There is something wrong when you have a subdivision and now your neighbors across the street are going to be in your subdivision. If you look at Fox Creek, there are 50 some lots and two exits onto Seven Mile. We are going to have 83 lots and one road onto Newburgh. Two cars per family and maybe three. That is a lot of traffic. I don't understand '44111. why this development can't go onto Newburgh Road but if there are two more lots involved, there is the money thing. I would hope this Commission would consider the fact that we don't need the traffic from the 80 homes onto St. Martins Street. Are we going to put a stop light there next? I would assume we wouldn't want a stop light. I wonder why Fox Creek has two entrances so close together. That is my objection. Mr. Engebretson: I think he raises an extremely valid point concerning construction traffic. During construction of this subdivision, would you take traffic into the construction site through a temporary cut onto Newburgh or did you plan to bring heavy equipment down St. Martins? Mr. Priest: Willow Woods is still under construction. The road has not been finished. I don't see any problem coming down a road that is already there. When that subudivision is finished, they will have to put a final surface on the streets. If that were done, then I could see some merit of not driving on that street but until that time I can't see any logical reason not to go down there. Ben Wilson, 37303 St. Martins: Most of what I wanted to say has been stated. I would like to reiterate that I believe Willow Woods already has 61 houses and by adding 22 more exiting on St. Martins, I believe it is going to be too much traffic at that intersection. If this other subdivision came off Newburgh, it would relieve some of that congestion by eliminating those 22 houses entrancing off St. Martins. I was one of the two families in Willow Woods Subdivision that was notified. Currently there are 31 residents and there were only two notified of this. I took it upon myself to circulate the letter I got from the City and several people signed a petition objecting to this entrance, which I would like to present. Mr. Wilson presented his letter to Mr. Tent. Mr. Morrow: Could Mr. Tent read the preamble to the petition? Mr. Tent: "The following residents of Willow Woods subdivision of Livonia disagree with the proposed plan of Whispering Hills Subdivision. The proposed additional 22 lots of Whispering Hills with the single exit onto St. Martins Street would place extreme traffic congestion at St. Martins and Newburgh Rd. Whispering Hills must have its own access off Newburgh Road to relieve this congestion and ensure safety considerations for residents of both subdivisions." Mr. McCann: A question to the Planning Director. I assume that the Planning Department worked with him on this design with the entrance off fir► 10803 St. Martins. Did the Planning Department consider an exit off the north side to Newburgh Road or can you tell us the benefits or the negatives of doing it off Newburgh Road to the north. Mr. Nagy: Yes we did evaluate the plans in light of the ingress and egress both in respect to Newburgh and St. Martins. It is our view `.. that the better plan is taking access off St. Martins. St. Martins, as the Engineering report indicated, was planned to be widened and we knew we needed additional right-of-way and the reason for that is that thoroughfares are really meant to carry through traffic and the less often you have intersecting side streets to thoroughfares, the better it is for traffic safety. The more often you stop and make turns, the more likely you will have an accident. That is why all these reports we read from Engineering and the Police Department, everyone of them cautions against taking access to Newburgh Road. The plan, from a public safety standpoint, works better with access to St. Martins Street. Now whether or not there are additional lots planned, that cul-de-sac could be flip-flopped and you could take that court and back it up to St. Martins and bring it around and access Newburgh Road and you will end up with the same number of lots so there isn't any economical benefit to the developer whether he takes access to Newburgh or St. Martins. It is just from a safety standpoint, it works better and aesthetically, in my judgment, it works better. It is better to have homes on both sides of the street, to have front yards to front yards. It will be a nice gateway into that subdivision. The alternative to that is to have a court and have those lots with rear yards, with rear yard features, facing onto a residential street rather than having front yards to front yards. I think aesthetically it would be a better situation. Mrs. Fandrei: John, would it be more dangerous to the residents of Whispering Hills also to have this new subdivision coming out to Newburgh in another spot, having two cuts instead of one? So the Police Department is saying it would not just be dangerous for the new subdivision but it would be dangerous for the residents of Whispering Hills? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it would be more dangerous for the future residents of Whispering Hills. Mrs. Fandrei: So they are endangering themselves by requesting another cut to Newburgh? Mr. Nagy: The greater danger is with respect to the new subdivision not the existing subdivision. The greater danger is to the vehicles that would use the new planned location. That is where the greater potential of hazard occurs. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since you are an expert in these affairs, what would your expert opinion be if these two subdivisions had all been one parcel? Would you think that the platting would have come out by and large the way we are seeing it here? Mr. Nagy: No doubt in my mind, it would have had a different configuration. '`. 10804 Mr. Engebretson: With regard to traffic flow or overall? Mr. Nagy: Overall. It would have been altogether different. Mr. Engebretson: Would there likely have been one entrance for the two subdivisions as one. fir.. Mr. Nagy: I would hazard a guess they probably would have ended up with two entrances on Newburgh Road. Mr. Engebretson: From that point of view, the argument can be made in spite of the Police recommendation, there may be some merit to this. Mr. Nagy: The other side of the coin is when we had Fox Creek Meadow Subdivision, we did in fact look at that issue, one drive versus two. Mr. Engebretson you recommended a single road to Seven • Mile and I think the other side of that coin that we mentioned was from a road blockage standpoint, you would seal out the area. That seemed to be the overriding necessity for the second entrance. Mr. Engebretson: Your memory serves you well. Considering even if we did have another cut through to this new subdivision, unless it joined up with St. Martins, we wouldn't have the benefit of the public safety factor as in Fox Creek. Mr. LaPine: If this was developed as one big subdivision, you still don't believe there would have an exit off Newburgh Road? Mr. Nagy: I think we would have a boulevard entrance off Newburgh Road and in direct alighment with St. Martins on the west side of NorNewburgh. Mr. Wilson: As far as traffic exiting those two subdivisions, he apparently is some sort of an expert on traffic, but I would think the disbursement of traffic on those two areas, at least exiting, would be conducive to safety rather than have everyone jammed up at St. Martins. I think he mentioned something before about doing somethint on St. Martins Road. Mr. Nagy: There is an additional right of way needed on the north side of St. Martins. It is going to give you more separation between the edge of that pavement and the right of way where a sidewalk will be placed across those new lots so the sidewalk will be further back from the pavement. Mr. Wilson: Are there any other subdivisions in Livonia that presently have 80 houses exiting onto one street? Mr. Nagy: Rennolds Ravine, Idyle Hills. There are many others. Mr. Wilson: Newburgh is going to be a very busy road in a few years. I think having one exit at St. Martins is going to cause problems. There will have to be some kind of a light in that area but it might not be feasible because it is too close to Seven Mile. If this goes through, there are other questions I think would have to be address. There is going to be a considerable amount of construction traffic. In the other subdivision there are 31 occupants there now and in the very near future there is going 10805 to be more. The school bus is going to have to come down that road. I don't know where the bus stop is going to be. Who is going to maintain St. Martins when this construction is going on? What happens to our mail boxes that are up there right now? ``.• Mr. LaPine: Every subdivision that has been built in Livonia has always had the same problems. We live in a subdivision with 260 homes and we have two entrances, one off Seven Mile and one off Gill Road. The houses were built in three stages. We all had to live through it and we all lived through it. You are going to have problems until all the subdivion is done. You are going to have problems with mailboxes because we had the same problems. It is something we all have experienced and the next subdivision that comes in is going to experience the same thing. You can't stop progress. They have to go in there to build the homes. Mr. Wilson: My main objection is it should have its own entrance off Newburgh. Belinda Miller, 19664 Sussex: I want to express my concern over the safety factor. We already have over 60 homes exiting from one exit, many of which are two income families. That could be easily over 100 cars trying to get out at the same time. I am concerned about the safety. Sue Hinckley, 37129 St. Martins: St. Martins Avenue where it exits onto Newburgh Road, when you read the Engineering report you mentioned a ten foot right-of-way. Does that mean St. Martins would be widened? Mr. Nagy: It means the area within which the pavement is situated, that is what we call right-of-way, not the traveled portion but all the land that is needed for actual physical pavement and for utilities and the public sidewalk. That area will be widened. Not the pavement but the land needed to support sidewalk and utilities. That will be widened ten feet on the north so the sidewalk will be placed at a properly safe distance from the curb. Ms. Hinckley: The plat shows that two houses will be put on St. Martins facing St. Martins. I assume the people will have driveways backing onto St. Martins so along with the fact that we will have 80 houses exiting, we will have traffic backing up. If people parked cars in front of their homes, it would be difficult to get in and out of the subdivision. Is Newburgh planned to be widened to five lanes between Seven and Eight Mile? Mr. Nagy: Not in the immediate future. The City has a right-of-way to accomodate five lanes but in the near future there is no immediate plan to add that fifth lane. Ms. Hinckley: So now you have a problem making a left hand turn and you don't have a lane to turn into. Is the sewer system for this new subdivision, will that be linked into the sewer system that we have or will it be a separate system? Mr. Nagy: It will be tied into the existing system. 10806 Ms. Hinckley: My house is on the cul-de-sac. In the back of my house there is a retention pond. When we made the offer on the house we asked about the nature of the retention pond and it was explained to us that it was set there to handle these 61 houses and it was designed to be that size. It was for when it rained like today and before I came over here I went over there and it was to the Saw top of the grading. So we back up to a retention pond that was just designed for Willow Woods Subdivison so to add 22 houses onto that sewer system, it was my understanding it was designed only to handle our subdivision. Mr. Nagy: The retention pond was only designed to handle your subdivision. The storm water from this new subdivision will drain into a system that will go south through Fox Creek Subdivision out onto Seven Mile Road. Ms. Hinckley: I am confused. It is my understanding we do not link to Fox Creek. Mr. Nagy: I think the engineer will explain it better than I can. Mr. Priest: The retention pond that you spoke of was designed for Willow Woods and that 9 1/2 acres there plus drainage on Newburgh Road for about half a mile plus about 100 acres of Greenmead in its undeveloped state. It isn't just for your subdivision. If you go up to the golf course, there is a creek there that drains around 80 to 100 acres of Greenmead. That all goes into that same retention pond. That property was zoned residential and was included in the design of the retention pond for Willow Woods. .1411. Mr. LaPine: You are saying your 21 homes will go in the same retention pond. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Priest, how does the water get from Greenmead across to the retention pond. Mr. Priest: There is a big culvert. There is a natural water area and it crosses Newburgh Road. There is also storm sewers on Newburgh Road that drain into that culvert. There is, I think it is a 42 inch pipe that comes along the north side of Bretton and goes over east of Sussex and then goes into that pond. Mrs. Fandrei: John, does this meet with your knowledge of the drains in that area? Mr. Nagy: I am aware of those systems but not all of the engineering details. Ms. Hinckley: I think it is kind of odd that the City Engineering Department did not give me that story at all. Before we put an offer on the house we checked out all the property and naturally having a walk-out house on a lot that has a retention pond, we were concerned about how high the water levels would be and the Engineering Department explained to us that was done only for Willow Woods. I think I would feel more comfortable if the City Engineering Department would look at that again to verify if that is the right size. I have one last concern, the size of the homes that are anticipated to be built there. Our ranch is 10807 1660 square feet with a walk out. I think the colonials are larger than 2,000 square feet. I would like a little more clarification that the homes are larger or would be on par with ours. Mr. LaPine: He stated the houses would be on par. $170,000 and up, 1700 square foot ranch homes with colonials over 2000. Those sizes are compatible with a lot of homes in Livonia. Mr. Morrow: What is the zoning classification on this? Mr. Nagy: R-4C. The zoning ordinance establishes the miminum floor area for a one-story ranch at 1500 square feet and a two-story colonial at 1800 square feet. That is the absolute minimum and they are exceeding that. Ms. Hinckley: By outletting that onto the same street that our subdivision is on kind of makes it one big subdivion and I am sure you would agree that if you built a home there, you would not want to see a whole new subdivision with homes with values less than what you purchased. Mr. Morrow: What is the zoning classification of her subdivision? Mr. Nagy: The same, R-4C. Mr. Morrow: We purposedly did that. All we can do is give it the zoning and assume the builder will cooperate. Ms. Hinckley: I was told our builder would be out by Thanksgiving so I support the separate entrance so the builder can finish our subdivision. Glen Sarkow: I am currently building a home in Willow Woods. My concern is with the road and one entrance. One thing that really bothers me is the one thing the gentleman said from the Police as far as safety wise is why they would have less homes on Seven Mile with two exits where on Newburgh Road you are going to have more homes with only one exit. That is going to carry more traffic and there are going to be more problems with accidents. I was told that hopefully in October the road would be capped and no heavy equipment would be able to go down the road. They need to have a construction entrance also off Newburgh Road because in other words you are saying if another subdivision would join in with us, we may never have our road capped. Also, I am a little confused with driveway. There is a boulevard currently there. Is there any chance that boulevard would have to be removed? Mr. Nagy: No chance. Chuck Trewin, 19505 Newburgh: I presently have lived there for about six years. When I moved in it was an empty field across the street and the complaints I have heard tonight, I can sympathize with them because I have experienced that. One of my concerns is that on the west side of Newburgh we have quite a few homes that are zoned R.U.F. , which means the lot size is about 1/2 acre. On 10808 the east side of Newburgh Road most of the zoning is R-4C, and the plat in question, Whispering Hills, looks like the lot sizes are actually a little bit smaller than the subdivision in the back. My concern is that the lots west of Newburgh are quite a bit bigger and you have these smaller lots sandwiched in between and somehow it wouldn't be appealing for our lots on the west '04m► side. One of my concerns is the size of the lots. I think they could be a little bit bigger and provide a buffer between R.U.F. and the smaller lots. My second concern, over the last several years, I have noticed a traffic increase down Newburgh and I have a serious concern with the traffic safety on Newburgh Road especially at St. Martins. The traffic is not only getting heavier but the people aren't slowing down and it is getting worse and worse and my concern is I have lived there six years and it is getting almost unbearable to make a left hand turn so I think something has to be done. Either a street light put in or possibly a fifth lane for turning because it is getting worse and with the addition of these 22 extra homes, it is going to get worse and worse. Belinda Miller, 19664 Sussex: I would like to urge this Commission to require that this design for the new subdivision be done so the exit is onto Newburgh Road rather than St. Martins. There was a discussion about a retention pond. I would urge you to have that investigated and be certain it is adequate before the plan is approved. I was not aware of the petition and I would be happy to add my signature to it. Al Nye, 19801 Liverpool: I think some of the concerns the homeowners had were kind of glossed over and I want to make a point specifically about the safety of children. Being St. Martins is the only exit and entrance to that subdivision and by the danger of adding another 22 homes you are increasing the number of school children. The bus stop probably will be very near the first four houses in Willow Woods and also the first two houses in Whispering Hills. Again, if I understand correctly, those driveways will enter St. Martins. As someone pointed out before if someone is backing out their driveway, they will block all traffic going west on St. Martins. If someone happens to have a car parked in front of their house, as somebody pointed out it is a boulevard, single lane and you are going to be having a problem with traffic on that fact alone. Talk about public safety, if there is a fire, you can't get a fire truck down there. There are a lot of concerns. As someone pointed out having 85 homes, that is about 165 cars. I could see at 6:30 or 7:00 in the morning having a line up. If one car wants to go to the south, you are going to hold up all the traffic. If you have a school bus stopping there, you are really going to have a problem. You are going to have people coming in off whatever the new street is from the new subdivision, invaribly there will be a stop sign and I am sure with the attitude of the people I have heard tonight, not many people are going to have much courtesy in allowing those people to get out onto St. Martins. I have a feeling that if this plan is approved, there is going to be a lot of problems with the traffic and children's safety. 10809 Mr. Engebretson: How would you feel about cars that are backing out of the current subdivision. How about your neighbors across the street? Is that a wider road or would you have the same problems with them? You expressed concern about fire trucks. What about your own subdivision if they were parking cars carelessly? Mr. Nye: I agree with what you are saying except we are talking about an entrance rather than an exit. If you have someone in first four homes backing out onto that street they have to, in essence, go to the east to go around the boulevard and come back out. They are not going to be causing a traffic jam or problem other than people entering onto St. Martins. Mr. Engebretson: I guess the point is that it appears to me there is a different set of standards being applied to the two houses on the north side of the street than the four houses on the south side of the street. Mr. Nye: I agree with that. There is a difference. One is an entrance and one is an exit. Mr. McCann: I think the point is, you don't have to worry about how fast a fire truck gets out of your subdivision just how fast they get into it. Mr. Engebretson: The density of an additional 22 houses, while that has some impact, you have heard earlier there are subdivision that have double and triple that density with only one access so I am wondering if that is really something we should be that `• concerned about. The gentleman who spoke earlier expressing concern about the traffic on Newburgh Road, well "he ain't seen nothing yet". Wait until Seven Mile and Newburgh is developed and Victor and the list goes on and on. The little bit of traffic generated by 22 homes will be incontestable. Mr. Nye: I think with that point it makes it even a stronger case, because if traffic is that bad, traffic will never get onto Newburgh Road. Mr. Engebretson: That is what we were concerned about with some of the overdevelopment of Livonia, not so much resulting from residential development as from commercial development, which generates thousands and thousands of cars. Mr. Nye: How will this solve that problem or help solve that problem in the future? It won't. If there are two entrances, that will help alleviate this problem. I certainly can't control the traffic on Newburgh. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, did we have a report from the Traffic and Engineering Department? Mr. Nagy reread the letters from the Traffic Bureau and Engineering Department. Mr. Morrow: Would they have addressed that concern when they said they have `r• no other problems. 10810 Mr. Nagy: They looked at all aspects. Martin Herak, 37193 St. Martins: I just wanted to make a point that everyone will probably be leaving at the same time coming out of the subdivision but they will be coming back in at different times. So the congestion is going to be of the homes going out of the Nifty subdivision in the morning not coming back in the evening so the backup is going to be on the north side of the street not the south side. The point was made there was two sets of standards and there should be because there are two different elements of time. One, the rush hour and everyone leaving at once versus evening when people will be coming home at different times. I don't think the same standards should be set for that element. I also have a concern for the school children, in the morning with the heavy traffic. I am hoping you will alleviate the problem by changing the access to the new subdivision. Lady in audience: We are still concerned about the street entering into ours. If the commission decides to grant this plat, what is the next step we can take? Mr. LaPine: It goes to the City Council. They have the final say. Mr. Morrow: We hold the only public hearing. You will have to be in contact with the Council office to be notified. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Depending on the outcome tonight, should it prevail, contact the Council office and let them know that you would like to be advised and also your public officials should be available to you all the time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat for Whispering Hills Subdivision closed. Mr. McCann: I would like to make an approving motion and I would like to explain the reasons for my motion. One, as commissioners we must look to the needs of the subdivision, the new subdivision being developed as well as the residents of the subdivision that is there but we must also look to the needs of the other 100,000 residents of the City of Livonia. The other thing we have to look at is the safety and welfare of the citizens. The proposal by the Engineering and Police Department recommends, for safety purposes on Newburgh, that two entrances would not be beneficial for the rest of the residents, in this case it would only suffice to adding 22 new homes to one access, which is not a tremendous amount, yet it would create another intersection, which would interfere with the traffic on Newburgh Road, which is already a problem and based upon the Planning Department's recommendations that this is the best design. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was Sow #8-179-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Preliminary Plat approval for Whispering Hills 10811 Subdivision to be located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Whispering Hills Subdivision be approved subject to City Council approval of a change of zoning ,tow for the property to the R-4C classification and to the following additional conditions: 1) That a landscape plan for the required greenbelt easement on lots proposed to abut Newburgh Road shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to submittal of the Final Plat. 2) That the requirement for open space as set forth in Section 9.09(b) of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations is hereby waived. 3) When the existing Willow Woods Subdivision is finished and as soon as they are ready to put their second coat on the existing subdivision roads, that the construction traffic associated with the development of Whispering Hills Subdivision be re-routed through some temporary access off Newburgh Road. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed design of the Preliminary Plat is consistent with good subdivision design principles. 2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat provides a good design solution for a small parcel of property. 3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is designed so as to be in harmony with the adjacent Willow Woods Subdivision. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-3-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #584-89, requesting to vacate a drainage easement located on Lots 178 through 186 and 211, 212 and 213 of the Sunset Hills Subdivision located on the west side of Middlebelt between Curtis and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Shane 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 `y stating their office has no objections to the vacating proposal. 10812 There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-3-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #8-180-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1989 on Petition 89-8-3-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #584-89, requesting to vacate a drainage easement located on Lots 178 through 186 and 211, 212 and 213 of the Sunset Hills Subdivision located on the west side of Middlebelt between Curtis and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-3-5 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the open drainage course which the subject easement was created to protect has been replaced by a storm sewer. 2) That the subject easement is no longer needed for any public purpose. 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine, 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. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #8-181-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Fox Creek Meadows Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is drawn in conformance with the Preliminary Plat. 2) That the City Engineer has no objection to the approval of the Final Plat. 3) That all financial obligations imposed on the Proprietor by the City in connection with the proposed subdivision have been taken care of. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #8-182-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 582nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 18, 1989 are hereby approved. 10813 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei NAYS: None 'tow ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-183-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 583rd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 1, 1989 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-184-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-7-8-26 by Victor Corporate Park, L.P. for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct two multi-story office buildings within the Victor Corporate Park Development located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and I-275 in Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan for office Buildings Four and Five as shown on the plan dated July 31, 1989 prepared by Add, Inc. Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Plans for Buildings Four and Five as shown on the plan dated July 25, 1989 prepared by Add, Inc. Architects are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Landscape Plan for Buildings Four and Five as shown on the plan dated August 7, 1989 prepared by John Grissim and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed on site prior to occupancy. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #8-185-89 RESOLVED that, Petition 89-6-1-23 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2 be taken from the table. err Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10814 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was `, #8-186-89 RESOLVED that, Petition 89-6-1-23 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2 be tabled pending outcome of the new restaurant ordinance. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 584th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on August 15, 1989 was adjourned at 10:57 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 ;/ Ze' 11 Raym ` d W. Tent, Secr6tary ATTEST: .- William LaPine, Chairman jg