The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-10-17 10854 MINUTES OF THE 588th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 17, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 588th 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 65 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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 89-9-1-28 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #692-89, to determine whether or not to rezone Lots 4 through 28, inclusive, of B. E. Taylor's Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision lying between Hillcrest Avenue and Henry Ruff Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUFC to R-4C. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: The petition area consists of a number of residential lots, numbers 4 through 28. All of the lots fronting on Hillcrest have houses on them. There have been five new lots created by lot splits through time from lots which run from Hillcrest to Henry Ruff, so there are five lots which front on Henry Ruff as well. Two of these lots currently have houses on them. There are a good mixture of lot sizes in the area. There is a church existing on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Henry Ruff. The rest of the properties are residential. The hearing this evening is a hearing to determine whether or not to rezone this particular area to a classification called R-4. In that particular case the miminum lot size is 90 foot in width or 11,700 square feet in lot area. If you were to look at those five lots that have been split, you will find each of those lots meet or exceed the R-4 designation. On the 17th of July at the meeting of the City 10855 Council, the City Council had before them a proposed split of Lot 20, a split similar to these other splits on these other lots. The result of that particular item was that they did not approve the split. Following that resolution they passed another resolution, the very next item on the agenda on the 17th of July, to ask the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to try and determine what would be a more appropriate zoning classification in the area. That is the purpose for this hearing. The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing, which really amounts to an advisory hearing, to determine whether or not to rezone the property and to listen to the public that are here this evening to determine their thoughts and ideas about this rezoning. If it was rezoned R-4, the result of that would be that anyone that owns a lot, which is a double frontage lot, that they can then request a lot split and if it were granted, they would then meet the minimum requirement of R-4. If they are split today, they would not meet the requirements of RUF, because each split is less than 1/2 acre lot area, which is the minimum area requirement of the RUF classification. If the Planning Commission approves this particular item tonight, it would be in the form of a recommendation of approval and the City Council would then have to hold their own hearing to decide the question. This is an advisory hearing to listen to the public and to determine what the sentiment of the area is. Mr. LaPine: If we decide to rezone it to R-4C, that means that every lot that asks us for a lot split would have to be 90 feet wide and have 11,700 square feet but if we deny it, they still have the option for each individual to go in and ask for a lot split and each split will be determined on an individual basis? Mr. Shane: Today they have that privilege but with the property as it is zoned now, each piece of property split would not meet the requirements of the RUF district. Mrs. Fandrei: How deep are the lots on the east side of Henry Ruff? Mr. Shane: It looks to be approximately 130 feet in depth. Mr. Vyhnalek: Out of the five splits, two are built on so far. Is that correct? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you know the value of those homes? Mr. Shane: I can't tell you off hand. Mr. Vyhnalek: I guess what we are talking about is there are 21 lots, counting two double ends, and if that is all R-4 some builder could come in there and try to buy up the property. That would force the homeowners maybe into selling if others start building. Maybe I am just jumping to conclusions. Mr. Shane: I think it should be made clear that the rezoning does not automatically mean that anyone has to go out and ask for a lot split. It may mean everything will stay the same except the 10856 splits now that do not have homes on them would then not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to build homes on them. Mr. Vyhnalek: They would be conforming lots then. Mr. Shane: Yes. If it was rezoned to R-4, it would be easier for a lot split Now to be made because the splits made would conform to R-4 zoning district whether it was made by an individual property owner or by someone who was able to purchase one or more lots. Mr. Tent: One question. If we went through zoning to R-4 category and it was passed by the Council, people would still have to petition for lot splits? Mr. Shane: That is correct. Mr. Tent: So if they just would rather sit on their lot and have nothing done they can do that or if they require a lot split, they have to go through another process. Would that entail a public hearing at that time? Mr. Shane: It would not be a public hearing. It would require action by the City Council. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Marylyn van der Harst of 14306 Henry Ruff Road stating her opposition to this rezoning since she states most of her Hillcrest neighbors bought their lots to enjoy space, and they keep their lots well, fence them, use them, and most indicate no great interest in selling their most valuable feature, their space and privacy. Mr. Morrow: I respect the views of the person who wrote the letter but she indicated it was a proposal to rezone the property and I want to make sure everyone understands that what we have is a public hearing to determine whether or not to rezone this property, not a proposal to rezone it. The City Council, in their Resolution #692-89, requested that we hold this hearing. We are here to study it tonight to get your views pro or con regarding this. I just want to make sure everyone knows why we are here tonight. Myrtle Kelly, 30425 Lyndon: I would like a question answered first. When there is a proposal to split the lots, are they including the house at 30425 Lyndon? That is Lot #5. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, this is a rezoning petition not splitting lots. Mrs. Kelly: But would it include my property too? Mr. LaPine: Yes, the rezoning petitioned area includes your lot. Mr. Nagy: There is little potential for dividing that lot, however and comply with the R4-C standards. Mrs. Kelly: Before you make your decision, I would like for each and every one of you to get into your cars and drive by our area. We have a 10857 beautiful area where we live on Lyndon and Henry Ruff and Hillcrest. It is unique to Livonia. This is one of the beautiful spots that Livonia has to offer. It has nice large lots. I don't see any neighbors. I can't hear if my neighbors have arguments. If their kids are in the backyard, I don't hear them because my house is far enough away. I don't know what my neighbors are `"r' doing. We have big, beautiful lots. It is serene. It is a beautiful spot in Livonia and I would appreciate it if you would all come by and look at the area before you make a decision. I am sure people want to make money on that property. It has been vacant for years. We have raccoons, squirrels and rabbits. My backyard is a nature preserve. Everybody is building around us. I have lived in Livonia for over 25 years and it seems like just in this last five years Livonia has just boomed and it is not necessary. We are a bedroom community. That has been the beautiful thing about living in Livonia. I can hardly get off of Henry Ruff Avenue any more because of cars coming up and down. We don't need it. I know we have to have money for taxes but I thought that was why we built the industrial center. We have three different video stores at Merriman and Five Mile. How can our community support three video stores? I am really disappointed in the Planning Commission letting all this building come into our area. It has gotten out of hand. I know that property could be developed into something nice. Even something for the senior citizens. That could be a lovely area to have something for the senior citizens here in Livonia. Don't chop it up. Don't sell your souls for it. Dave Ross, 14300 Hillcrest. I moved there three months ago. I paid $102,000 for a 1,000 square foot house. The reason I paid that money is because the lots are all large. I am totally against any houses \rw being built in my backyard. Henry Ruff isn't paved. If they were to pave that road, they would tax my property and possibly force me to sell my lot against my will for the extra tax burden. I went to every house and asked them to sign a petition against this and out of thirty lots, I got twenty people who signed against it and that represents what people around me feel. We don't want anything changed. Brian Fischer, 14124 Henry Ruff: We are going to try to make your job easier. We have a lot of members of our community here and they have given me the opportunity to speak on their behalf. A lot has been said already. The first lady speaker made the first comment that I was going to make. If you would just drive down our street and see the way people keep up their property and the appearance of those lots, you would see the pride the people have in this area. It has been truly gratifying to see the way people really care about Henry Ruff. I don't think you can discount that. One of the main reasons we moved there is because it is a dead end street. It doesn't have a full highway and as such my 2 1/2 year old and 5 year old can walk fairly safely. If we were to rezone this, it would seem to me it would be inevitable that it would be necessary to bring this all the way down to the freeway. We would have a through street and the attendant traffic. This morning I spoke with a member of the Planning Department to learn some of these issues and speak to them intelligently. We have been given 10858 some information that some of these houses that are proposed were going to be about half the size of our houses. Most of the houses on Henry Ruff right now are about 1902 square feet. Most of the backyards are about 120 to 130 feet. The location of the homes is important. We have a situation here where there would not be a large backyard available because of the need to expand the concrete or the roadway because I don't think it would be sufficient with houses on both sides. It seems to me you are going to have a small backyard for those two homes. What we don't know and would like to know is what kind of developer is going to be proposing this. I thought we heard that the petitioner was going to speak first. Mr. LaPine: There is no petitioner. This is a request by the City Council. There is no builder. The reason it came up is there have been a number of lots where individuals have asked they be split and the Council approved them and then in another case they said let's look at this whole area and that is why we are having a public hearing. Mr. Fischer: There has been no statement made to anyone about a developer coming through even though we have seen surveyors? There are other comments we wanted to bring to your attention. There is a neighborhood church as has been mentioned. It would seem to me if this goes through and they are likewise assessed for that additional concrete, it would be additional cost to them and it would be a big burden on this local church that has been very supportive to the whole community. In addition to that, originally when we were moving in we were told there was not sewer capacity for this particular area to be developed. I don't know if that has been looked into but I think it should be looked into. '44m► Certainly if sewers have to be tied in, they will be tearing up lots and that should be addressed as well as the assessment. We are not sure also but there is a high power voltage line going across the area and if these lots were split I don't know who would bear the cost or expense of that if they had to be moved. Those are issues that we wanted to address as well but I think more than anything else obviously with this C designation that has been talked about the minimum square footage would be 1500 square feet for a ranch home. What we are concerned about is our property values. I think everybody in that community takes extreme pride in the fact that despite increased taxes we seem to increase our property values every year. We don't want to lose that. We don't want to lose the appearance of this area. I think both speakers have already echoed that. It is important because it is a unique area. It is a little more stronger community now. I really can't say it any better than that. I have asked that this request be denied for all those reasons. Mr. Morrow: Which lot do you live on? Mr. Fischer: We live on 209 and 210. Mr. Morrow: You are not within the area that is going to be rezoned? Mr. Fischer: No. We are across the street. \r. 10859 Mr. Morrow: Do you understand that no developer could come in and develop this without the consent of all the effected property owners. The only way that they could be split is if the homeowner wants to split their lot. I think the young man who submitted his petition had twenty people who said they didn't want to do that so I don't think there is a big movement afoot to do a lot of splitting of lots. Mr. Tent: I would like to address my comments to Ms. Kelly. You were quite eloquent in what you said. I, as one Commissioner and I'm sure my fellow colleagues have done the same, have driven through the area. We take pride in our open space planning. We want you to have large lots and I think the Planning Commission has done a great job here in the City. You indicated the video stores that were located there. They had the zoning and it was difficult for us or the Council not to allow that type of development to go in. We take great care to not let that zoning be infiltrated into residential. When you say you are disappointed, I wish you wouldn't be. We are careful and we are concerned about the area and about chopping up the City. When you see something happening it is not because we just capriciously did it, it is because of zoning that they already had. In this case here, this is a Council resolution. They are saying look at it. I certainly don't want to chop up lots. Mrs. Fandrei: To our first speaker and to the other residents. The reasons you like Livonia are the reasons why so many people are wanting to come to Livonia. It is a very desirable place to live. I have lived here 30 years. I appreciate your desire to have open areas and animals. We all like that but that isn't always a possibility. The one concern I had about this proposal was how __ the property owners under the present proposal felt about this possible rezoning and our second speaker answered that with a petition with twenty signatures out of thirty. That answers my concerns and I for one would like to see the petition withdrawn. Mr. Engebretson: I want to repeat what Ray said to Ms. Kelly. We have all been there. We do take our job very seriously. It is a beautiful area and I would like to thank all the residents for coming here tonight because frankly I didn't know how you felt about this. There could be a logical case made to do this particular zoning issue particularly in light of the ten lots that now exist in the non-conforming manner. I think it is very likely that what Brenda has proposed is going to happen. However, be sure that you are aware that this isn't the end of it because we are going to make this recommendation back to the City Council and they are going to make the final decision on this. By taking the course that you have, by circulating the petition, by speaking so outwardly to the matter, you make your points very loud and you are very convincing. You have to also realize that you always have your destiny in your hands even if this zoning does take place. You still have control because you simply don't sell. Thank you for coming. I think you will be happy with the result. Alexander Wowk: I live on Henry Ruff. I am at the dead end of the street. I occupy the east half of Lot 21 of B. E. Taylor's Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision as recorded in Liber 71, Page 42, Wayne County Records. My deeds and records that I have in my possession state 10860 my property is subject to building and use restrictions recorded in Liber 9930, Page 613, Register No. D367099 and in Liber 10849, Page 246, Liber No. D541996, Wayne County Records. I therefore respectfully request that my lot be stricken from this zoning business because I have already been zoned and I have occupied the premises for twelve years and my predecessor probably occupied it for twelve years also. Under the circumstances and the facts in hand, I respectfully request that my lot, the east half of Lot 21, be not considered in this proposal. Mr. LaPine: Are you on Hillcrest? Mr. Wowk: I am a resident on Henry Ruff. I am one of those people who actually occupies half of the original lot. Mr. LaPine: How long ago did you build your house? Mr. Wowk: I did not build the house. I purchased the house. The former owner built the house and he split the lot. Our land has been platted. We have to abide by the plat. Mr. LaPine: In your particular case, it is already done so there is no problem. It will just become part of the plan. Mr. Wowk: That is what I am trying to point out. Eventually if someone does develop this, I will be assessed for street improvements. As far as I am concerned, I don't want to be put under any more zoning restrictions other than what I have under my present conditions. Kathleen Jones, 14100 Hillcrest: I am for the proposal. Some of the lots are already split. That set a precedent. I am not asking any '*11, neighbors to sell their land but I would like to have the opportunity that if I would like to sell it, that the split would be available so I could sell it. The gentleman that just spoke lives behind me to the side and I've never met him before. People who want to keep the property, keep it. I am not saying everyone should sell their land but I think that the people who would like to eventually sell should have the opportunity to sell it. Mr. LaPine: No matter what happens tonight, you still have that option to ask for a lot split. Ms. Jones: I did ask for a lot split and it was denied. Mr. LaPine: You can ask for it again but that is up to the City Council to make that determination. Mr. Tent: You are the one who did request the lot split and were denied by the City Council? Ms. Jones: That is right. Jane McCallum, 14380 Hillcrest: We are definitely opposed. Everyone keeps saying we don't want to sell back lots. It does directly affect us. I wanted to clarify that everyone says all you have to do is not sell but it affects you regardless. `w 10861 Ambrose Calcaterra, 14176 Hillcrest: I have been a resident there for 28 years. This is not the first time this has come up. About 14 years ago there were people who wanted to split their lots and it was before the Council and at that time the City Engineer made a firm point that no way could any individual split their lot and build back ,,` there and get access to the Hillcrest sewer because it was to capacity so he recommended anyone who wanted to split their lot would have to petition for a sewer along Henry Ruff to support all those lots. Whether anyone sold or not they would all get assessed for this sewer and then eventually the street. If the rezoning would occur, there would be a few individuals who would split their lots to sell. I'm sure we would be looking at a sewer assessment even those that did not want to sell. Each individual lot owner when they sell their home can put that money from that sale to another home and not be taxed whereas if you split that lot, you would have to pay State and Federal taxes on entire earnings whereas if you sold it individually, you would forward it to another home. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-9-1-28 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-212-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989, pursuant to Council Resolution #692-89, as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion, to determine whether or not to rezone Lots 4 through 28, inclusive, of B. E. Taylor's Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision lying between Hillcrest Avenue and Henry Ruff Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUFC fir. to R-4C, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 89-9-1-28 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. 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. Kluver: Could that be followed up with a letter to the City Council supporting the decision of this Commission? Mr. LaPine: Yes it can, Mr. Kluver. Mr. Nagy can you please prepare the letter as requested? Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-9-1-29 by G. Franklin Laucomer for Esar Bachman and B. J. Wright requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from M-1 to C-2 and P. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 10862 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from our Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire, Department of Public Safety, stating their office has no objection to this proposal. %or Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department stating the proposal is unsatisfactory as submitted. They state the following changes are needed: 1. Provide a sidewalk along the Shadyside frontage. 2. There are too many access drives on Eight Mile Road and they are poorly located. 3. Most of the aisles are shown as 20 feet wide. It is recommended that a minimum width of 22 feet be used. The single row of parking (18 cars) could be eliminated and the depth of parking spaces could be increased. Also, the restaurant should be moved west about six feet to improve the aisle and parking on the side adjacent to Shadyside. 4. There is insufficient width for parking spaces provided. 5. A "Left Turn Only" sign is indicated for the Shadyside drive exit. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence from Inspection? Mr. Nagy: No we do not. Mr. Tent: Are there any violations on this? Mr. Nagy: Not in connection with this rezoning proposal. Mr. Tent: Nothing with the manufacturing building? Is the building vacant now? `0411. Mr. Nagy: Yes it is vacant. Frank Laucomer, 26400 Van Born, Dearborn Hts. : I am the petitioner. One thing I said at the last meeting that we were trying to comply with all the regulations. During the past week I have identified six items that I believe we have complied with. We haven't heard from the Planning Department regarding the revised plan. I will go down the list quickly. Mr. LaPine: You are talking about Item 7 on the agenda. We are only interested in talking about the rezoning now. Mr. Laucomer: In my letter of request for rezoning I state the site has an old industrial building. Originally we were going to try to use that as commercial but found that was impractical. Our plan now is to demolish the industrial building and convert that area to parking for the new building and we would build an entirely new building. We feel that the development we have there, the new store and the drainage that is in for the proposed parking area and the fact that we have the sidewalk and some of the landscaping in, that we can make it a very desirable shopping center. We would like to build a new commercial building on Shadyside. To utilize all the parking we would like the outdoor sales moved. We feel that the industrial site should be removed because everything else is C-2, and M-1 is really spot zoning and we feel it would be much better and more desirable to rezone to C-2. r.. 10863 Michael Petteys, 20411 Shadyside: I want to say that when Mr. Nagy read the letter from the Police Department, I did go back down to the Police Department and we have made a few changes. We got rid of one proposed drive and the new proposed east drive. Officer Thorne said that would be sufficient to satisfy the Police `► Department request so we don't have to move the other drive. With the parking lot he found he was in error and we did have sufficient parking. I would like to see it zoned to C-2 because the rest of the property is commercial and I think it is logical to keep it C-2 especially since M-1 has few restrictions on it. James Muir, President of North Central Civic Association: I am going to give you facts according to Muir. We studied that area. There are already 3 full service restaurants, 4 gas stations and approximately 10 to 20 stores and the like. The traffic in the area is already intolerable. The street I live on, Shadyside, has become a real good cutoff to get in and out of the Eight Mile - Farmington corridor. You look at that and we say that is our problem. We bought there. It is not our problem. You have to control this. We don't think it is in our best interest to have a commercial development there. We will have more traffic. I agree a left hand turn sign might help. The traffic congestion in the area will undoubtedly increase and it will further add to the already overworked traffic conditions. I work here in Livonia so I travel here in Livonia and I see a substantial amount of commercial property with "For Lease" signs and I don't think it is in the best interest of the City to add another one to that roll. The M-1 classification is something we fought hard to get. Even if it is a little outdated, we know what we are dealing with. Our objective is to leave it alone. I don't know what this looks like to you but to the two houses there, I'm sure it doesn't look real pretty. Mr. McCann: I have a couple of questions. I understand and I am aware of your history with this piece of property. What I see is an M-1 piece of property. Now accepting certain conditions, one you have problems with ingress and egress onto Shadyside and I can understand that. You don't know what is coming in there but what I see is M-1 and the building is not going to sit vacant. I have been there. I know what it was when it was operating. It wasn't a pretty sight and I know what it looks like now. When I look at this proposal I say what can we do to protect the neighborhood and make this one section better and that might be instead of facing into the subdivision, face the other way and put a nice structure in there. We are just looking at zoning right now but do you think with proper site plan you could come to some agreement with the neighbors and property owner to come up with a better looking plan? Under those conditions, where we would work with you as far as egress onto Shadyside and whatever other restrictions you want, is that something you think your group could work with? Mr. Muir: I think it is workable but I don't want to stand out on a limb here. Kathleen Edds, 20414 Shadyside: My property is directly across from the area that is the proposed parking area. My mother is next door. We are 10864 concerned about the property there and what is going to happen there. The traffic is our main concern because already the traffic on Shadyside is extremely heavy for people making left hand turns. I am just really concerned that it is going to increase the traffic and make it unsafe for our children. It is an eyesore now and it has been. I am wondering are the headlights going to be into my living room? It is directly across from my home. We feel like we are getting boxed into an area smaller and smaller all the time. I understand the site plan hasn't been proposed yet. It is not so much the rezoning. If you could make something nice out of the area it would be fine if it was a pleasing plan but they do have a history there of not maintaining their property. Mr. Morrow: One comment I would like to make. We are thinking purely zoning. As I see it, as one Commissioner, we are giving an additional 16 feet of commercial to a very large commercial site. The balance will be parking so for 16 feet of commercial we are getting rid of the manufacturing classification and an old building. What they put on that is an entirely different matter. The restaurant is a waiver use and that has to be approved. Looking at this petition, we are giving 16 feet of M-1 to C-2 and getting rid of an old industrial building and getting parking. Mr. LaPine: I want everyone here on this petition to know they are also going to be heard tonight on Item No. 7, which is a waiver use for a restaurant. Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I know I am quite aways from the area proposed to be rezoned. I am one of the directors of the North Central `r. Civic Association. We feel we know what we have with the M-1 but with these people we don't know what we are dealing with and we prefer to have M-1 zoning to C-2. I think we have enough commercial in Livonia. We have it to the west on Farmington. We have it all over the City of Livonia and I don't think we need any more restaurants around. We know what we have with M-1 and we have dealt with it and we prefer it to C-2. What they are proposing now might go in there and be fine for a while but what if it closes down. What else might they put in there? We don't want any more video stores. Clarence Charest: I represent the petitioners in this matter. However, I think I might be able to be of some assistance to you. I remember this parcel very well. Back in the late fifties I represented Mr. Leiber and at that time he attempted to rezone the property from commercial to M-1. It was their desire to expand a non-conforming use that existed for many years. I am familiar with the North Central Civic Association because they opposed the concept of this being a manufacturing site for many, many meetings. We failed to obtain the zoning. We were turned down by the Planning Commission and also the Council at that time. Several years later while Mayor Braesher was still with us another petition was filed and that was successful. It went from commercial to M-1. The North Central Civic Association was very upset. They said you are destroying our community. You are destroying Eight Mile Road. As of this time that is what the petitioner wishes to do, to get it back. It is a logical extension of the C-2. I fail to see how it is reasonable not to allow this petition. With that factory there being an eyesore, in my opinion, it is very undesirable. I would 10865 think they would like to eliminate it and I certainly think it would be in the best interest of the City to convert it back from M-1 to C-2. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman if this petition is approved, because it is built New upon a very specific companion site plan that isn't under consideration here, I am just wondering if by approving this petition if there is a default approval in some form of the companion petition. Mr. Nagy, would you have an opinion on that? Mr. Nagy: I don't think there is a default. I think the companion petition rises and falls on its own merits. The companion petition is a waiver use for a restaurant. While there is a site plan submitted with it that has to deal with the overall property, I think the Planning Commission can very easily and should separate the site plan from the proposed use. What is before you in Item No. 7 is whether or not it should be used for restaurant purposes. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to get involved with the larger question of the overall development to operate a shopping center. You merely focus your attention on whether or not a small portion should or should not be used for restaurant purposes. Mr. Engebretson: I understand that. I also understand you are not an attorney. I guess as a lay person it would almost appear to me if this was approved now, the petitioner has a piece of property with a very specific parking area around C-2. I am just wondering if the other petition should face significant opposition, if the petitioner has a case to be made that we put him in that corner. Mr. Morrow: From my standpoint, whether I vote for or against this, I would `, not condition my vote. When you vote for zoning there are no conditions placed upon it. If I were to vote in favor of this extension, I would not be obligated to approve any sort of waiver or site plan in the future. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-9-1-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #10-213-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-9-1-29 by G. Franklin Laucomer for Esar Bachman and B. J. Wright requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from M-1 to C-2 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-9-1-29 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-2 classification represents only a minor extension of the existing C-2 district in the area. 2) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide an opportunity to rid the area of a vacant industrial building and replace it with a 10866 new modern commercial operation as well as to upgrade the entire area. 3) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 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 89-8-2-44 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Cardwell Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 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 their office has no objections to this proposed use. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to the proposal. William Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: As you know, this is a brand new building and the shell has been up for approximately one year. At that time some attorneys commissioned us to build the building and then backed out so as a result we have a 12,000 square foot building on a lot. Just recently we had an offer to purchase the building provided the user would get permission, the user being an advertising firm which is now in Southfield. They wish to purchase and occupy the building. The operation would consist of administrative offices, including artists, draft persons, layout persons, sales representatives and clerical. There will be no retail, no display and the office hours would be normal working hours 8 to 5. I understand it is not a professional service use but it is certainly, in my opinion, a parallel to it. I would hope that this Planning Commission could recommend approval and if you see fit, I would request that you could possibly waive the seven day waiting period. Mrs. Sobolewski: Bill, would there be any warehousing done at all? Mr. Roskelly: No. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is there warehousing done in Southfield? Mr. Roskelly: There will be some warehousing but not on that site. It will be administrative and illustration department and sales rep personnel. Mrs. Sobolewski: No distribution of any packets? 10867 Mr. Roskelly: No. Strictly a professional office building which they will utilize in its present condition. Mrs. Sobolewski: How many employees? slew Mr. Roskelly: They presently have twenty. Mrs. Sobolewski: They will be the only occupant of the building? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. Tent: Would you give us the name of the company that is coming in? Mr. Roskelly: Val-Pak Corporation. Mr. Tent: As far as parking. We have sufficient parking? Mr. Roskelly: We presently have 47 parking places. Gail Misiolek, 28033 Buckingham: We occupy the house right behind the building. I just want to say we are for changing the ordinance from professional service to general offices. The building has been vacant and the kids have been skateboarding in it so if somebody is going to occupy, I would rather have 9 to 5 offices than a medical center. I want you to know we are for it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-2-44 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was `fir. #10-214-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-8-2-44 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Cardwell Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-2-44 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 10868 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was #10-215-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 89-8-2-44 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Cardwell Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: None 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 89-8-2-45 by Livonia Mall requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant (Ya Ya's Chicken) within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. 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 this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Jeanne Hildebrandt, 29514 Seven Mile Road: Livonia Mall is asking the Planning Commission to approve a sit-down restaurant in a space next to Crowley's facing Seven Mile Road serving char-broiled chicken. Mr. LaPine: Can you tell us how many restaurants you have in this center now? 10869 Mrs. Hildebrandt: I have five at the present time. We are short. With a million square foot shopping center, such as we are now, we are short of restaurants. Mr. LaPine: As I understand from the previous meeting, you will only be able `r. to enter from the Seven Mile Road enrance not through the mall. Mrs. Hildebrandt: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Do we have a rendering of what it is going to look like from Seven Mile Road. Mrs. Hildebrandt: No rendering although we have a building elevation plan. Mr. Morrow: Could you explain what we would see from Seven Mile Road? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Arbor Drugs is on the corner and then we have JoAnn Fabrics next door to that. It is a shingle front. The sign would be the same as it currently is. Mr. Vyhnalek: The front is going to stay the same? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: Can you explain the concept and how many employees they will have and the hours it will be open? Mrs. Hildebrandt: It will be open the same hours as the shopping center. It is a new concept. So many people are going into health food. It is all char-broiled, nothing is fried, and it has become an '44111. interesting concept starting in Florida and now they are coming into the Michigan market. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is there any carry out? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Some, but mainly sit down. Mrs. Sobolewski: They do not have deliveries? Mrs. Hildebrandt: There are no delivery trucks. Mr. Tent: As far as the restaurant is concerned, can you be more specific about the operating hours? Mrs. Hildebrandt: The operating hours will be the same hours as that of the shopping center, which is 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. , noon to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. They must adhere to the mall hours. Mr. Tent: Is there another Ya Ya's Chicken within Wayne County? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Not in Wayne County. There is one in Warren. Jim Morgan: I am the franchisee for Ya Ya's Chicken. Currently there is one open in Flint, one in Warren and one in Waterford on M-59. Possibly the one in Waterford is the closest. `r, 10870 Mr. LaPine: The restaurant will only be open during the hours of the shopping center? The reason I ask that is, it is not really part of the shopping center. They don't have to come inside the shopping center and they could stay open later hours and come in off Seven Mile and Middlebelt. You are definitely going to be closed when Nifty the shopping center is closed? Mrs. Hildebrandt: With the exception of Johnathan B. Pub, all restaurants must adhere to shopping center hours. Mrs. Fandrei: The franchise has a color scheme? Mr. Morgan: Yes. The basic colors are green and reddish orange. I have given you menus before that do have the color scheme on them. Mrs. Fandrei: That is what you would be using on your sign? Mr. Engebretson: The staff notes indicate in two separate locations that they refer to the color scheme for the awning and sign. Apparently there was some perception that there was to be an awning. I would like to ask Mr. Morgan, if you are the franchisee of these other Michigan stores, can you tell us (a) if that is the case and (b) if that is so, do you have awnings at those particular locations and (c) are the locations at these other cities part of regional shopping centers or are they freestanding? Mr. Morgan: None of them are freestanding buildings. It is a new concept to go into leased space. None of them have awnings. We have only shown that on there as a possibility but that is something that would be to the mall's approval. Nifty, Mr. Engebretson: Mrs. Hildebrandt obviously does not approve of the awning. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-2-45 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-216-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-8-2-45 by Livonia Mall requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant (Ya Ya's Chicken) within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-2-45 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site and Building Elevation Plan dated 8-17-89, prepared by Robert W. Giesey, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 100 as shown on the Floor Plan marked sheet 2 dated 8-1-89, as submitted. 10871 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 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 89-8-2-46 by Livonia Mall requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail sales addition in the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Tent: Mr. Bakewell, did St. Priscilla Church sell some property to the petitioner? \.. Mr. Bakewell: Apparently they did. I believe it is the portion south of the extended parking area that abuts the senior citizens. That is to give them the necessary land for parking. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to the proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable as submitted. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their office has no objection to its development contingent upon the installation of an approved water supply and fire hydrants on site. Jeanne Hildebrandt, 29514 Seven Mile Road: Again, Livonia Mall is asking for approval. We would like to expand the shopping center. We feel Children's Palace, after giving a lot of thought to the idea of having another major building joining the Livonia Mall, would be a marvelous addition as it brings the younger couples with children to Livonia Mall. Children's Palace is nation wide. They are a reputable company. The merchandise they carry is not in competition with my other three majors and they do an excellent job and their store is handled very well. 'rw. 10872 Mr. Tent: Do you have a rendering here of what the building will look like? Ms. Hildebrandt: We have our Architect here. Mr. Ken Misch, President of Jon Greenberg & Associates showed a rendering of Children's Palace. Mr. Tent: It will be compatible with everything else that you have in the mall? Ms. Hildebrandt: Yes. Mr. Tent: Will there be internal restrooms? Ms. Hildebrandt: There are rest rooms adjoining plus they will have restrooms in the store. Mr. Tent: Will this compete the expansion of Livonia Mall? Ms. Hildebrandt: We had to buy the 2.4 acres to do this. Mr. Vyhnalek: Speaking of the 2.4 acres. Was that purchased from the church? Ms. Hildebrandt: Yes it was. Mr. Vyhnalek: Years ago when you expanded before, the senior citizens apartments, McNamara Towers, had access. Do they still have access to get to the mall. Ms. Hildebrandt: Yes. They can come down St. Martins. Mr. Morrow: One of my concerns has always been the viability of the major \ry regional malls in Livonia. Could you offer any kind of idea as to what this project means to the mall in viability over a period of time? Ms. Hindebrandt: With the competition that is being built in Novi, we need this addition. Novi, at the Expressway and Novi Road, is growing continually. Twelve Oaks is growing. We have tremendous competition. We need to expand and we need the addition. Mr. Morrow: It is safe to say we made an investment in the future should we approve this. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the time frame? Ms. Hildebrandt: We plan to start January 1. We have to turn the pad over to Children's Palace by April 1st. They plan to open October 1, 1990. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-2-46 closed. 10873 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-217-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-8-2-46 by Livonia Mall requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail sales addition in the Livonia Mall rte, Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-2-46 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 8-28-89 prepared by Jon Greenberg and Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3.2 dated 2-8-88 prepared by Glassman Associated, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That a fully developed landscape plan for the proposed building and new parking lot shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval within 30 days of the date of this resolution. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all 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 subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. *416' 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 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 89-8-2-47 by Racquetime, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate outdoor recreational facilities, specifically beach volleyball courts, on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Market Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. 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 Traffic Bureau stating their office has no objection to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no �"" deficiencies or problems were found. 10874 Maureen McPharlin: Basically what we want to do is use the area that is now used for parking and we want to put up beach volleyball courts. The one closest to the road is 140 feet away from the road so there is no danger of the volleyballs getting into the road. Just basically to keep up the property. There are no nets left up overnight. There are no lights. There is no play after dark. `r. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there any other facility like this in the City of Livonia? Ms. McPharlin: Not that I am aware of. I don't know. I haven't researched that myself. Madonna McPharlin was the one you have been basically talking to about that. She was asked to research that but she hasn't told me. Mr. Vyhnalek: Racquetime is indoor tennis? Ms. McPharlin: Indoor racquet ball and wallyball. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to operate in the summer? Ms. McPharlin: Yes. This is to help maintain some of the business during the summer. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you have three courts going, ten on a court, where are the families and friends going to sit? Ms. McPharlin: There is a viewing area around. There are some benches around. There is plenty of space. There is a lot of land around the courts which is not near the road or traffic. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to have leagues? `u. Ms. McPharlin: Yes, and it will all be supervised. There are facilities inside. Mr. Vyhnalek: When you have outdoor sports and you have tournaments quite a few people show up. How are you going to control the consumption of alcohol? Ms. McPharlin: There is no alcohol allowed because it is being supervised. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you have maybe 100 people watching a volleyball game and you have some guys bring their six pack of beer, are you going to have any type of security? Ms. McPharlin: We haven't had any talk of tournaments. Basically it is for leagues. We don't have a view of having 100 spectators. Mr. Vyhnalek: If it is successful and you have volleyball, which young people love to play in the summertime, you could have some crowds there. I just wonder if you have any precautions. Ms. McPharlin: It will be supervised and there will be referees for each of the teams and there will be Racquetime staff and maintenance. As far as hiring outside security guards, no we will not. 10875 Mr. Vyhnalek: Don't get me wrong. I think these are excellent activities. I just want to caution you that if it catches on, it could be crowded. Mr. Tent: Is it true that you started to construct three courts there on the premises and then you found out you needed waiver use? Ms. McPharlin: Yes. Mr. Tent: So that is the reason you are here before us now. I am interested in seeing the area that you were talking about tournaments being held in. Is there plenty of room for people to sit. How is that handled? Park benches or stools? Ms. McPharlin: I did not say anything about tournaments. That is not really logical. We have wallyball tournaments in the indoor during the winter and have fourteen courts and we use all fourteen when we have a tournament. So basically this is just for league play. The benches we would use would be just straight benches. Mr. Tent: These are not permanent structures? Ms. McPharlin: No. There is nothing permanent there except for the sand. Even the nets are taken down every night. Mr. Tent: As far as collecting debris, that is part of your responsibility? Ms. McPharlin: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: The asphalt curb. Is that part of your property? Ms. McPharlin: Probably. I would think so. Mrs. Fandrei: It is towards the back of the lot. The asphalt curb has been removed and there is a drive through to the lot behind lot number 6. Was that intentional? Ms. McPharlin: As far as I know. I don't know if that was intentional when that building was built. The building was built about fourteen years ago. I don't know when that driveway was there. In fact, as I recall, I think that particular driveway is not even open any more. Mrs. Fandrei: It looks like it is used very regularly and very heavily. Ms. McPharlin: I think generally when this is used is during the day and it is not by our traffic but some of the industrial buildings. As you will notice, Court 3 is the closest and it is still 90 feet from there. It is not regularly used like Plymouth Road is. Mrs. Fandrei: Towards the back of the court, it is closer than 90 feet to Court 3. Being that you are going to have players and families that are going from the parking lot to the court, they are going to be going through this area where this traffic is flowing so I am concerned because that is a very heavily travelled area there. 10876 Ms. McPharlin: Generally in the summer there is enough parking in the front. Mrs. Fandrei: What I would like to see, if this is approved, is that curb be replaced and a fence put along the back. The ordinance does state that a recreational area be fenced and I don't ask that but I would like, because of the people using these three courts and walking the whole general area, I would like to see a fence along the back of Lot 6. Also, you mentioned that you maintain the property. All along the curb from the last third of the building, from that point back to the end of the lot there is quite a bit of scrub. Could that be removed also? Ms. McPharlin: Right now we are heading into the winter season so that will be done. It is leased property but I would imagine if that is what you would request, I am sure we could do it. I do know that Madonna designed the courts and instead of making four courts, she made three so we could keep them far enough away because we were trying to avoid putting up a fence. As far as the curb, I have not looked at it lately but I do have some idea of what your concern is. Mine is that basically with three courts you may have only 30 people back there. We keep going back to tournaments. It sounds like there are going to be hundreds and hundreds of people there and all we are basically trying to do is keep the people who might support this sport inside in the winter and have them outside in the summer. We can have leagues for hours upon hours without having hundreds of people there at one time. There is not going to be that much traffic. Mrs. Fandrei: I just want to eliminate them driving through your property. A fence just along your back line. Put the curb up and possibly a fence across the back line so there can't be any traffic whatsoever going through those lots, Ramchargers and yours, 'oar because they are using both lots to get onto Plymouth Road. I would like to see that prohibited totally with no possibility of that curbing being knocked down again. The only way to do that would be with a fence across the back of Lot 6. Ms. McPharlin: Is that what you are requesting? Mr. Engebretson: I think it is not so much a matter of a request but it is a requirement of the ordinance. Is that correct Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Ms. McPharlin: Whose responsibility would that be? Would it be both Ramchargers and Racquetime? Mr. Engebretson: I think the details of who is responsible for what, you can work out with the Planning staff. The point is the ordinance requires a fence and I would just like to add that while beach volleyball is new to Livonia, it is something that is a rampage across the country apparently and I guess that is the power of ESPN and all the impact of cable TV. Someone told me last night that in Muskegon, which is about half the size of Livonia, they have more than two dozen beach volleyball courts there in separate locations and it has worked out very well. It is a family type of 10877 activity and some of our concerns may tend not to surface. The point is we are still dealing with an ordinance that requires a fence. I think you are going to be successful and I think you are going to be back looking for two more courts, but you have to build a fence. `'r" Mr. LaPine: How does this work? Do you rent the space by the hour? Ms. McPharlin: For the league play, it is like we do for wallyball, which is basically we charge a league fee which is based on how long the league is there. If it is open court, it is based on per person, like $2.00 an hour or whatever the rate is. Mr. LaPine: When you rent one of these courts, how long does it last. As long as the applicant wants? As long as they pay so much an hour? Ms. McPharlin: As many hours as you want. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will there be any signs out there? Ms. McPharlin: No just the sign stating the name of the facility only. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-2-47 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #10-218-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-8-2-47 by Racquetime, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate outdoor recreational facilities, specifically beach volleyball courts, on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Market Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-2-47 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 10-9-89 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That there shall be no alcoholic beverages consumed on the premises. 3) That the premises shall be kept free of paper, bottles and other such debri at all times. 4) That there shall be no fixed seating or other such permanent facilities on the site to accommodate spectators. 5) That the property be brought into compliance with the ordinance as determined by the Ordinance Compliance Department of the City of Livonia. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 10878 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. `rr 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 89-9-2-48 by G. F. Laucomer requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a new building proposed to be constructed on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal indicating their office has no objection to this proposal. We have a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. There is deficient landscape area. 2. There is deficient parking. 3. The proposed sign cannot be evaluated without more detailed information. 4. In rr. C-2 zoning districts, the maximum permitted height is 35' . This proposal reflects a 40' height and as such is 5' over what is allowed. This can be corrected by reducing the building height or by being appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, we have a letter from the Traffic Bureau. Much of this is the same as was read with respect to the rezoning petition but it does include some additional detail. Their letter states the proposal is unsatisfactory to the Traffic Bureau. Changes needed include: 1. Provide a sidewalk along the Shadyside frontage. 2. There are too many access drives on Eight Mile Road and they are poorly located. 3. Most of the aisles are shown as 20 feet wide. It is recommended that a minimum width of 22 feet be used. 4. There is insufficient width for parking spaces provided. 5. A "Left Turn Only" sign is indicated for the Shadyside drive exit. To be enforceable, this must be submitted to and approved by the Traffic Commission. If the Planning Commission adopts or suggests this control, it is requested that a letter and copy of the resolution be submitted to both the Traffic Commission and Traffic Bureau. Mr. LaPine: I have one question. At the prehearing review, it came up about parking and it could have been recalculated based upon how many square feet. They were supposed to submit a plan showing how much of the building was being used for retail sales. Has that been submitted to you? 10879 Mr. Shane: There have been a number of discussions between myself and the petitioner's representative, Mr. Laucomer. As of approximately 5:00 this afternoon, he did submit some revised plans for site plan and building elevation and some calculations of building floor plan so we obviously have not had time to pursue them and cannot comment to any great extent on them. `. Clarence Charest: The only purpose of this meeting and the purpose of this petition is to obtain a waiver use and we would like to concentrate on that. It is our desire to establish a Senate Coney Island at this location. We understand it is necessary to have a site plan approved by this Commission and by the City supporting all the ordinances and we plan to do so. As a matter of fact, they have sufficient parking. We have reduced the height of the building to 35 feet. We have closed off one of entrances to the parking area. Remembering that this waiver is going to be contingent upon the site plan, we would like to concentrate on the waiver itself as to the desirability of establishing a restaurant at this location. Members of the North Central Civic Association indicated there are too many restaurants in the area now. I don't think so. I think the type of restaurant Senate Coney Island is, is unique by itself. It is not the type of restaurant established there so far. Most of them are full service restaurants, a different type than Senate. Senate would be compared with the one on Plymouth Road. If we wish to go into specific questions as to area, parking, etc. I assure you that plan we had submitted to Mr. Shane does comply. However, Mr. Laucomer will go over it with you if you so wish or he can continue meeting with Mr. Shane in order to make the plan more desirable to you. We have to comply and we intend to do so. We would like to concentrate on the concept dealing with whether or not a restaurant should go into this location. We have reduced the number of seats by 32 so now it is down to 200. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them if I can. Mr. Tangora is here also this evening. Mr. Tangora represents Senate Coney Island and I would like for him to speak to you for a moment. Chuck Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road: I would like to support Mr. Charest. In my observation of the Senate Coney Island, I am sure many members of the Planning Commission have seen this operation over at Plymouth and Stark Roads and prior locations before that and have knowledge of what type of a job these people do. Both partners are here tonight and I think they run outstanding restaurants, which is truly an American success story. In my opinion they run one of the finest restaurants and they are the hardest working people that I have come in contact with. They intend to run the same type of restaurant at this location that they do in Stark Plaza. If you have questions, they or myself are here tonight to answer those questions. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Tangora, the restaurants that are in the area already, can you tell me if there is a service they provide that may be provided by another restaurant in the area? 10880 Mr. Tangora: I don't think so. Mr. Charest has a restaurant there and I am familiar with the area and with the Big Boy around the corner and there is the Leather Bottle and I think Senate Coney Island is unique restaurant. They have a very definite clientele that goes there. I have been there many times myself. You see people who are factory workers and truck drivers and you see people in white Nrmy shirts. There is a definite following. Mrs. Sobolewski: How many restaurants do we have in that area? Mr. Tangora: You have Big Boy. You have Mr. Charest's restaurant. You have the Leather Bottle. There is a new shopping center down at Eight Mile and Gill Road which has plans for at least several restaurants. Those are the ones I can think of right now. Mrs. Sobolewski: So what is unique about Senate? Mr. Charest: It is a big early morning operation. It is a big steak and eggs operation and big lunch. Much different than any other restaurant in that area. Mrs. Sobolewski: I don't have any problem with Senate. It is a clean place and I can tell they are very busy. I was just curious to make it known as to what kind of use it would have in that particular area. Mr. Tangora: It is not into the early hours of the morning. We mean 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Sobolewski: It is not serving people who leave bars and people after movies? Mr. LaPine: You remember on Northridge Commons Shopping Center we approved a pizza restaurant, which is now open. We approved a Coney Island rr. Restaurant. We approved a Submarine Shop plus the Council just approved the Arby's Restaurant so we have four restaurants at that one center. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, are your clients separating in any way with the operation on Plymouth Road? Mr. Tangora: No they will continue to operate that. Mr. McCann: I do consider their operation a family restaurant. It is one of the places I can take my little ones to and get away with a reasonable price when I leave. I am wondering if they are going to consider this competition to themselves directly since I live in that area and I certainly quite regularly use their operation on Plymouth Road. Mr. Tangora: I think they feel in that particular area there is enough support for a second Coney Island. It is an area that has a lot of industrial firms that would probably use their facility for breakfast and lunch. You have a neighboring community, Farmington right directly to the north, and there are a number of residents there that are attracted to this type of restaurant. Mr. McCann: Can you tell me how many seats there are at the Plymouth Road Restaurant? 10881 Mr. Tangora: 175. Mr. McCann: It is my understanding they are asking for an expansion on Plymouth Road. +10.. George Dimopoulos: We are going to ask if we can have next door. We get real busy at breakfast and lunch time especially on Sunday. Mr. McCann: How many additional seats? Mr. Dimopoulos: Between 40 and 50. Mr. McCann: So you are looking at over 200 seats for Plymouth Road. You believe 200 seats will be sufficient for your new restaurant? Mr. Dimopoulos: I think so. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora and George, I am quite familiar with your operation. You had one on Michigan Avenue in Detroit and one in Taylor and now you have two in Livonia. Whether I approve of another restaurant there or not, I just wanted to say for the people in the audience the Senate Coney Island is not a fly-by-night type of restaurant. Wherever they go they have a good product as Mr. McCann said and they do a tremendous business. They have a good product and they take care of their facility. There is only one other question I would like to ask. I know some of your operations are 24 hours. In this area, what would your working hours be? Mr. Dimopoulos: Between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Mr. Tent: What are the hours of the one on Plymouth Road? Mr. Dimopoulos: 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Charest, you said you lowered the building five feet. Did you do anything else to the building? Mr. Charest: Three stores are together at south end and retail sales for the garden center. Mr. Vyhnalek: I realize what you said about this is only on the waiver. It looks like, from the majority of the people talking, that Senate Coney Island is a good viable restaurant in that area but I believe Mrs. Bea Wright is going to own the building. Her track record is not the best. I have been on the Commission for 9 years and have been dealing with her for 7 or 8 years. I still feel we have to get some of these plans. We haven't had a chance to look at them and neither has our Planning Department. There are still a lot of things to bring together. Mr. Charest: While you are talking about track record. Many of the things that were required of Bea Wright over a period of time and many of the charges of failure to maintain and failure to do this, failure to have a wall. There was no obligation for a wall for that original store. They built a store. It was approved. After it was built, 10882 they refused to give her a Certificate of Occupancy. The most ridiculous claim in the world because they said even though the building permit provided for building on two lots, they had to put a wall up. That wasn't the requirement by the ordinance. They kept at her for three years. They cost her a great deal of money in addition to attorney fees. I told them go ahead and start a lawsuit. Right is right. It was resolved and they admitted it wasn't necessary. We weren't even required to have a wall because in the rear was parking but in order to alleviate ther problem, we did put the wall up and we had a storage area there for a long period of time. As far as present plans are concerned on the southern end of the building we had that storage given to us back in 1982. We do comply. We are not going to run away. She has been there for many, many years. We are not going to leave the area. We are going to comply with whatever we have to do. By granting us a waiver, it is not going to take away from our obligation. We are going to have to comply and we are asking for this so we can formulate some plans. We would like to get started. I think they have been good neighbors in Livonia. I think they are entitled to go into business there. We will comply with everything we have to do. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, pursuant to the lawsuit that the City had against this property, has everything been complied with what the Court requested that they do? Mr. Nagy: They made a firm effort to comply with the Court order. There is still the matter of the temporary shelter. That will be removed at the time they compete the outdoor canopy so that the material that is being stored in there will go under the canopy and then ,` that structure will be removed. With that one exception, they have complied with all the other conditions imposed upon them by the Court. Mr. LaPine: All the piles of stuff are still on property. The big tree stumps - isn't that supposed to be removed? Mr. Nagy: The Court order did require them to maintain the property in a neat and clean and orderly fashion. Mr. Charest: According to Mr. Fegan, who reported to the Court, we are in compliance with everything that is required of us. We did receive a Certificate of Occupancy and a permit to build outside storage and it was contingent upon us to have it in decent order to get that permit. That should be started very shortly. We are in compliance at this time. Mr. Nagy said the only thing is the greenhouse, which is in front, and we can't discontinue that use until we have this area in the back. Mr. Tent: This thing has been on the agenda since 1971. We have had problems way back then. I feel that if we are going to develop this piece of property, instead of haggling, why can't you get together with your clients and clean up that area? We mean business and you mean business also. I for one, as one 10883 Commissioner, cannot go ahead and approve a waiver until I see what is going to be done. I think we are on the right track. That Coney Island probably would be a good tenant but that all piggybacks together with the balance of the property. I am also concerned about those stumps. Let's satisfy those people that 4w. have lived next to that mess all those years. That is my position on this. I want to work with you. You have a plan here but we haven't seen it. I hope you have the staff look it over and if they make any objections I would hope that you would advise your client to accept that. I think we will come up with something. I want that place cleaned up and finished and occupied. Mrs. Fandrei: I have a question for George. My only concern about a waiver for a restaurant is the outdoor sales and I just want some feedback from you George whether you thought about this. Any outdoor sales that I have been aware of has blowing dirt and I don't find that compatible with a restaurant on the same site. Do you have a problem with that? Mr. Dimopoulos: I don't think so. Robert Wyman, 20321 Shadyside: I have a couple of concerns. No left turn on Shadyside. I wouldn't like to see an exit on Shadyside. The outdoor sales is all the way back to the end of the property. I would like to see a few changes made on their plans. Other than that, I am not that opposed to a restaurant there. Florence Sarkission: I am right across the street on Lot 39. I have had to go to the City now, how many times I can't count, to get people to come out to make these people clean up the mess over in that area. In '14ft. fact, they finally got out there this week and have started to clean it up. When my husband was alive he used to clean that for them, free of charge, but he has passed away and nobody has even swept that place in 3 1/2 years. So finally I think someone came out this week. They leave their dumpsters open there. They say they can't get them picked up but once a week so their trash is blowing in my yard, etc. I am wondering if we get a restaurant in here, is the City going to enforce the rules that they have to keep those trash containers empty. We don't want rats in the neighborhood. They tell me they are very clean. I don't know I have never been in their restaurant. They have invited me over but I did not have the time to go. They claim they keep up their property very good. That would concern me because if you don't, you are going to have rats. Since these people are forced by the City to do it, are you going to force them to do it without me having to be down at City Hall or calling on the phone all the time? The other thing, I was concerned about is their hours because if they are going to be open until 10:00 p.m. , will they be held to these hours? If they were open later, I would have to listen to that traffic all night. That is my concern. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, can they stipulate to the hours in the site plan approval or the waiver use approval? 10884 Mr. Nagy: They can voluntarily restrict themselves but we can't by ordinance. That would be a restrain of trade. We have to take them at their face value that they will live with the hours that they propose here. Ms. Sarkission: That is what I mean. Mr. McCann: Maybe the petitioners aren't the worse neighbors. I agree I wouldn't want a restaurant open next to my home until 1:00 a.m. Ms. Sarkission: You people seem to be familiar with the owner of this Coney Island and he has kept his property clean and obeyed the City ordinances so I would just hate to see that get as bad as this. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, this condition of operation, we can condition the zoning to that. We have done that in the past. Is that something that has changed lately? Mr. Nagy: What we have done in the past, is that if they proposed to restrict themselves voluntarily, we then incorporated that in our resolution as a condition. Mr. Tent: In other words, we could put that as one of our conditions if they agree to it. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: They have to voluntarily restrict themselves and then we reference that in our resolution of approval but we don't place the restrictions. Mr. Tent: If they volunteer, like they did tonight, it could become part of our resolution and could be enforced. Kathleen Edds, 20414 Shadyside: I do want to bring up the point that if the restaurant is able to accomodate 200 people, it would increase the traffic and adding that traffic to what is there now means we can hardly get off our street on Shadyside. There are a lot of children in the area and we like our children to be able to walk down the street without being afraid of being hit by cars. If this restaurant is put in, these children are going to have to stay off the streets. I am not opposed to the restaurant per se because I am sure it would be a good example for Village Greengrocer because I think they take care of their property but what I am saying, you have to take into consideration the residents and our access. I feel the children are a big consideration and traffic is going to be increased too much. David Edds, 20414 Shadyside: I am concerned about the parking area. Are they going to tie up into the storm sewer? We have problems now with the storm sewer backing up into my yard. Also the lighting. Naturally they are going to have lights. Right now the Village Green have their lights on top of building flashing onto their area and it comes right into my front room. As far as the driveway, they have plenty of room to have driveways off Eight Mile. I would just as soon not see any driveways off Shadyside to cut down on the traffic on my street. 10885 Bob Nash, 20245 Shadyside: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy a hypothetical question relating to Item No. 2 on tonight's agenda. If the zoning were to be changed to C-2 and the second part that we are talking about now gets denied, what could possibly happen to the building that exists there now? `r. Mr. Nagy: Are you talking about the industrial building? That is a non-complying building. It doesn't comply with the yard requirements so to reoccupy this building for another use would require separate approval from the Appeals Board. They would have to show hardship. There is a potential it could be re-occupied. Mr. Nash: Could it be grandfathered? Mr. Nagy: I am sure that would be their principal argument. Mr. Nash: I think what I am asking, it wouldn't necessarily have to be torn down? Mr. Nagy: As a result of this zoning change? No it would not have to be. Mr. Nash: Would it have to be torn down or could it remain vacant or could it revert back to manufacturing? Mr. Nagy: It would revert back to manufacturing if the zoning is turned down. If the zoning is approved, then the underlying zoning has changed, the building has been vacant, and if they would propose to use it for commercial purposes, I think we would have a much stronger argument to say that building cannot be occupied for commercial purposes because it has now changed from industrial to Nor commercial. I think they cannot rely on the valid non-conforming use because the use itself has changed from industrial to commercial. I think they would substantially weaken their position to rely on the grandfather clause, if the zoning were changed. Mr. Nash: Addressing the proposed restaurant, I think I would prefer to situate the restaurant as far east as possible so there could only be landscaping on the Shadyside side and no parking or entrance or exit relating to the restaurant. Back two to three years ago, we were here hassling about the rear use of that property. I believe the City Council did allow the property owners to use that southern most area as a truck entrance and I believe there was supposed to be a gate constructed. I think a lot of emphasis should be placed on traffic on Shadyside. There is all kinds of frontage on Eight Mile Road. That would also shield the residents from the parking and lights. I think the property owners could do a lot for the residents if they could forget about all the rhetoric and arguments about the property and just clean it up. All the lawsuits, they don't accomplish anything. I think the Council and residents are unanimous in the fact that the property is not maintained and they aren't very good neighbors. James Muir, 20200 Shadyside: I would like to know the height of this. I asked 10886 that for a reason. I don't understand the proposed development. Thirty-five feet strikes me as being high, which leads to my second question which deals with how much influence can a restaurant have in the site plan? I think the directly affected residents probably would feel more amenable to any solution if they somehow or other felt they were part of the solution of the problem as opposed to being adverserial. The question about the height is probably a question about understanding the site plan, understanding what really is going on. I would like to see the directly affected residents have a chance to view and participate in solving this problem. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Muir, I think you have gone right to the heart of my concern. They have asked us to grant a waiver of use based upon the restaurant coming in there. If that restaurant were a permitted use in that zoning, I would not have the concern because it is just a technical review. I think by not having the plans here tonight, they are cheating the residents in this area because everything I have heard from the residents has to do with site plan, if we get away from the poor housekeeping, such as the locations of the buildings, the parking, the lighting, the driveway, the dumpsters, etc. Everything refers to site plan. We don't have one to see. It is not a permitted use in the C-2 district. That is why, as one Commissioners, I think the waiver has to go hand in gloves with the site plan. Mike Petteys, 20411 Shadyside: I work for Village Greengrocer. Most of my neighbors will tell you we did canvass the neighbors up and down the street and I showed them the model. Everyone on Shadyside was concerned with traffic. When I talked with Lieutenant Thorne he said he couldn't see any problems with traffic coming from our property being excessive. Almost everyone down the street would like to see some traffic control. Maybe no left turns or no through traffic. I sat on the corner of Lot la between 4:30 and 6:00 and saw 130 cars make left hand turns down Shadyside. If there is an accident at Eight Mile and Farmington forget about walking down our street, I'll be the first to admit that, but that is because of the light situation at Eight Mile and Farmington. If someone could put in a left turn light, I think that would be doing everyone a service. We would like to have the Police Department put in a no left turn sign at Shadyside. As far as the drain, we are connected with the Eight Mile Road drain. Mr. LaPine: What is your connection with this development? Mr. Petteys: About three years ago I was asked if I wanted to manage the Garden Center. I went over to Village Green and applied for the job. I turned my resignation in. We just got the building approved about 2 1/2 years after I have been there. Those stumps the people are complaining about, we just put them down temporarily to stop people from driving through. Regardless of what we have done so far, we have put up little barricades to keep people from cutting through to Farmington Road. We are really trying to make this as nice for the neighborhood as possible. 10887 Mr. LaPine: Do you operate the nursery? Mr. Petteys: I want to operate the nursery. Mr. Laucomer: I think I can answer some of the questions. I heard the statement made that B & W Enterprises had not done anything to improve this site. Is there anyone on the board that would deny that we built a building in excess of $500,000. That, I think, is a hard fact. We put a sidewalk in the entire length of the property along Eight Mile Road at our own expense. We put the fence in and we have roses planted. They will be blooming next summer and I think it will be a real showplace. We put the entire drainage in for the future parking lot. Those are some of the things that have been completed. To answer some of the questions that have come up tonight our present entrance to the back of our property is off Shadyside and is at the extreme south of Lot 18. In talking to the neighbors they are concerned about the traffic. I am not criticizing that, but in order to help the situation some we have moved that exit about 175 feet north and our exit is now opposite the industrial zoned property on the east side of Shadyside. Our plans show on that exit to the south of our property, it shows a six foot high obscure wood fence to keep the lights from the parked cars from shining into residences across the street. Our plans were submitted one or two weeks prior to last weeks meeting and there were criticisms and mistakes. I didn't get all of the answers but I just wanted to quickly go through the changes we have made. We reduced the height of the building to 35 feet. We eliminated one access drive off Eight Mile. We took out four parking spaces which correspondends with Mr. Shane's recommendation. The plan we submitted this afternoon shows the Nm. sales area and storage area. In the existing building you can go in now and it is approximately 50% storage and 50% sales. It is not 20% storage and 80% sales. The new building will have a restaurant and we have reduced the number of seats from 232 to 200. That eliminates the need for sixteen parking spots. We have a small specialty store, which is 25 x 70. The rest of the building will be a garden store in connection with the outdoor sales and it will be 50% storage and 50% sales. All except the restaurant and the specialty store will be opeated by B & W Enterprises. The present flower store, garden store and new building and outdoor sales will all be operated by B & W Enterprises. It will not be leased out space. It is not a spec type building. It is all being operated by the owner. When we moved this drive further north, it created a dead end parking lane. We have made those 27 stalls and are designating them for employee parking. I have tried to answer all your questions. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Laucomer. I guess we all try to be sympathetic. We know you have clients you are trying to get into that building but you are an architect. You put things on paper to sell clients. We had a public hearing tonight and I am sure half the people don't know what the proposed building is going to look like. It is not our fault that you don't have the plans. The plans we saw last week did not meet the ordinance. We asked you to go back and redraw the plans but we haven't seen what you have done to bring them in compliance. You talked through the plans but I have no idea what we are reviewing here. 10888 Mr. McCann: Everything I heard tonight, and personally I agree with the audience, they want to see some change here. You are moving in the right direction. It is going to be adjourned tonight because we don't have a site plan before us. I know what my fellow commissioners are saying. They want to have that site plan because we are close to resolving many of the issues. One thing they do want to see is you said you are going to have employees park on easterly side of the building. Why don't you, in the meantime, take a look at not having an access on Shadyside since it is going to be employee parking and I think you will resolve a major problem with the neighborhood. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Laucomer, I would want to encourage you and those you are associated with in this proposal to work with these neighbors who have expressed some very legitimate concerns and whether you agree to do that or not, I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to be sure that Mr. Muir and Mrs. Sullivan and anyone else that is interested in this case be invited to any and all meetings that we have on this matter. That is my comment and my question is to Mr. Nagy, being one of the newer members of the Commission, Mr. Charest raises an interesting point in his opening remark that we are here to deal with the waiver use. He is right. Mr. Morrow has raised the point that it is very difficult to deal with the waiver use without dealing with the site plan. I think he is right too. I think there is mass confusion here. My question is in the time I have been here I don't have any recollection of dealing with a waiver use petition for a non-existing building, more particularly for non-existing buildings that aren't permitted on land as it is zoned at the moment. So is this something new or is this even proper to deal with the waiver use before dealing with zoning and/or site plan? Mr. Nagy: Part of our zoning requirement to permit a waiver use petition is to submit plans to show evidence they comply with the special standards that relate to the use. Restaurants, for instance, require that the site be served by two driveways. In order to evaluate those kind of requirements and be sure the site will be developed in accordance with that, you need a plan you can evaluate. It cannot be viewed in isolation. You have to see the plan that goes with it. With an existing building where there are no changes, you can just go out to the site and determine if it has all the conditions prerequisite to comply. So to do a proper evaluation of a waiver use you must have the site plan. It is an application requirement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-9-2-48 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #10-219-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on Petition 89-9-2-48 by G. F. Laucomer requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a new building proposed to be constructed on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road 10889 between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-9-2-48 until the Study Meeting of October 24, 1989. 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. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, could we get a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division saying if they have complied with everything? Mr. Engebretson: Could we also get a copy of the Council Resolution and Planning Commission Resolutions on this property and also the Court report. Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to get a copy of the new site plan. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Western Golf Estates Subdivision proposed to be located north of Lyndon, west of Inkster in the Northeast 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 in our file a letter from the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation stating they foresee no problem with the plan as presented. We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following comments are submitted for our consideration: 1. All roads to be paved. 2. All roadways to be 31 feet, or greater, in width. 3. Sidewalks to be provided along all road frontage. 4. Consider a small island on Santa Anita where it turns at Lot 53 & 54. 5. "Brookhaven" is a new street name. The proliferation of street names can be disadvantageous to emergency response or efficient business deliveries. 6. No vehicle access to Inkster Road from Lot 1. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objection to its development but consideration should be given to hydrant location so that there is no distance greater than 350 feet between hydrants. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the revised layout. They state consideration might be given to establishing a public walkway along the northerly limits of Lot 8 to provide future access to the County-owned property facing Inkster Road. Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: I think the information you heard is all true. I would like to speak of the lot the Engineering Department is asking about, Lot 8, at this location (Mr. Roskelly pointed it out on the map), which is presently a 60 foot easement that is why this lot is so wide. I have no objection in giving the walk but I am reluctant to put it on the plat because at this point the county has not purchased the land. That land as you will recall is also zoned R-2 with the balance of the land but was deleted from the plat assuming the county would follow through and `r.. 10890 buy it. In the event they don't, I would pick that up and put in a cul-de-sac. Yes I will provide an easement for a walk but I am reluctant to place it on the plat. It would have to be contingent upon the county proceeding with their purchase of that land. Some of the neighbors I spoke with were also intersted in having a walkway to the adjoining school. That walkway was suggested to be along this lot (also pointed out by Mr. Roskelly), which was a portion of the easement. I, again, have no objection with that except I would have to have the blessing of the Planning Commission, the Fire Marshal and various people as to whether or not the City wants that walkway. The problem we have is there is a little tip of land I have no control over and the owner of this property would have to make arrangements to get through to Lyndon Avenue. Without that walkway all these children will have to be bussed to a school they can see. I will certainly entertain the motion that I will provide an easement for a walkway. I will certainly provide the easement for a walkway that Engineering is requiring if, in fact, the county does purchase that land. Since I went for rezoning, I have made some alterations. At one time I had two streets coming to the west. (Mr. Roskelly indicated on the map the changes he had made) One lady called and said I would be creating a corner lot for her so I said I would either place a fence or landscaping to give her privacy. Mr. LaPine: You are going to put all the improvements in there? You are going to sell these lots off to different builders? Am I correct? Mr. Roskelly: I have two proposals in my mind. One, we may build some of them. The other, we may sell all of them or we may sell them to four or five builders. Mr. LaPine: My concern is with this holding tank. I am concerned people buying these lots, will they know there is a holding tank out there? Therefore, I would request in the models that there be a sign that there is a possibility of a holding tank being there. I think the people should be well aware that they are buying a lot in an area where there is a possibility of there being a million gallon holding tank. I am sure you would like to know if you were buying a lot there. Mr. Roskelly: I am as much or more concerned as to what will take place on that parcel of land. I have been assured and I am still not content, but you can believe me I again agree with you totally. It will be indicated that it is in fact or will be an underground retention tank but at that time you will have renderings of the buildings so that everyone will be totally cognizant of what is going there. I might add that the county is offering that this will in turn become an open space and a park and the only area that will be fenced will be around the structure and the balance would be utilized by these people. Mr. LaPine: The other concern I have is I would like whoever makes the motion here for or against this, that we have a letter from Wayne County that we have been pretty well assured there will be no odors from this tank and it will not cause any environmental problems for the people who live in the area. 10891 Mr. Roskelly: I would not only agree with you but I would encourage that motion because under no circumstances will I sell this land to the county unless they satisfy me on these same counts. I would like to make one more comment. If you notice on the plat I have two names - Brookhaven Estates or Western Golf Estates. The reason for that is Ms. Brooks, who lives in California and who the land was purchased from, insisted at one time that we use Brookhaven Subdivision in honor of her father. I found out that the name is protected in the county and they have exclusive right to that name and my only requirement was that she write me a letter giving me permission to use the name, which she has not done. So in the interim I have called it Western Golf Estates. At some future date, because she was at a Council meeting indicating that she requested the name and before Council I indicated I would be happy and proud to use it if I could get a document which I have not received. Cindy Cezat: I am the corner lot which Mr. Roskelly was referring to. I would much prefer to see the cul-de-sac there. I realize with the traffic and the different requirements, it appears the road may have to be there. If the road is going to go, right now Jamison Avenue at Santa Anita is a curb road and we have traffic flying around that curb right now. We want to make sure they put in a three-way stop and if it can be added to make sure I get some type of buffer because I am losing the entire privacy of my lot. Bill Queen, 27954 Lyndon: I am the one who owns that little piece of property, which is not for sale. He wants a walkway through there. I have a neighbor whose property ends right there on the corner of mine and you have the new subdivision, which is the corner lot, which I think is going to come almost to the sidewalk. That's where the peg for the survey is. I talked to my neighbor next to me and I don't think he would appreciate a walkway through there because his driveway is there. I have hedges that run across the whole front of my property and it becomes a blind spot. It is not for sale. I am not going to sell anyways. Mr. Engebretson: How far would the proposed walkway that would open up the property for those children to walk to school, how far would that be from your house? Mr. Queen: About 200 feet. Mr. Engebretson: Why don't you want that to go through? Mr. Queen: We don't want to sell the property. It becomes one big City block. Mr. Tent: You said your neighbor doesn't want it. Is your neighbor here? Mr. Queen: I am the only one here. I don't know why. He doesn't want it and other people don't want it. They are not here. I don't know why. 10892 Charles Wright: I live on Lot 71 on Lyons. I would like to thank Mr. Roskelly for working with the neighbors on the concerns we had and the one concern, which the gentleman just in front of me commented on, is his property is not for sale. We did approach the gentleman as a resident and one of our concerns is that my children are bussed to fir. the elementary school, which I can just about throw a stone at. We approached Mr. Roskelly and discussed the situation with him. That is a viable building lot for him and he was willing to give that up. I regret to hear the neighbor is opposed to selling the property. He has six feet from his driveway to the back of his lot and he would, in essence, gain more property. I think it was a viable solution to where this gentleman that just spoke would be able to receive some property in exchange for a walkway, which would allow our children to walk to school and also keep that tax burden down in school bussing. Mr. Engebretson: There are a lot of legal matters here tonight. The gentleman makes a lot of good points. I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to refer this matter to our Law Department to see if, after investigation, if this is deemed to be a proper action on the part of the City then perhaps a condemnation order would be suitable to pursue it, not saying that is something I think is necessary but I think that is a valid possibility. So let's take a look at it. Mr. Wright: I do sympathize with this neighbor but where is the neighbor whose property is going to be subjected to the walkway even more so than his and is he even here tonight? Mr. Roskelly: To address the comment of the gentleman that indicated to you that by virtue of the property configuration and due to an encroachment on my property that I think he believes he has been occupying approximately 30 feet of my land. When this gentleman came to me I made the proposal that most of the people wanted this sidewalk and I thought it was a good idea and I would be willing to not only provide the walk but, if he would relinquish that little wedge, I would in turn give him the back portion of this lot as a land swap. I was willing to discuss giving him a parcel here so he would have more room in the rear yard. I will do everything I can to get the sidewalk in. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Western Golf Estates Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-220-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 17, 1989 on the Preliminary Plat for Western Golf Estates Subdivision proposed to be located north of Lyndon, west of Inkster in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Western Golf Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: 10893 1) That the Preliminary Plat shall be revised to include a public walkway easement across Lot 8 providing Wayne County acquires the abutting property and across Lot 29 providing access to Lyndon Avenue can be obtained. 2) That a plan for a subdivision entrance marker shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3) That landscaping or a fence for the house at the corner of Jamison and Santa Anita be provided for. 4) That a sign be put in the model informing the prospective buyers of the possibility of a holding tank being there. 5) That the petitioner attempt to obtain a letter from the Wayne County Health Department verifying that there is not going to be any odor coming from this holding tank or problems with the environment but if Wayne County will not provide it, petitioner shall not be denied approval. for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That no City department objects to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. 44ft„ 3) That the Preliminary Plat provides a good street and lot layout for the subject property which is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding development in the area. 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. 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. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #10-221-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated October 4, 1989 from Douglas Lombardi, Secretary of Bottles & Stuff, requesting a one-year extension of Petition 88-4-2-16 by Donald Laidlaw, Bottles & Stuff, Ltd. II, requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within an existing party store located on the west side of Newburgh Road between 10894 Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, which property is zoned C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the extension be denied for the following reason: 1) That the proposed use is not needed at the subject location because the area is already served with an SDD licensed facility which is within 1000' of the proposed location. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #10-222-89 RESOLVED that, Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald Parz for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, be taken from the table. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #10-223-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald Parz for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, be Nur approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated 6-28-89 prepared by Mandell Bilovius and Associates, Architects 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 prepared by Mandell Bilovius and Associates, Architects as modified so as to provide for the substitution of a decorative type concrete block on the north elevation is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 4) That the conditions imposed upon this project by the Zoning Board of Appeals in their Resolution dated August 22, 1989 regarding Appeal Case No. 8906-81 shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2) That the project is of sufficient merit as to be compatible to and `'r► in harmony with the adjacent and surrounding uses in the area. 10895 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was flow #10-224-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council Resolution #809-89, and pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, and Part VII, the Future Land Use Plan, to add the "nature preserve" designation and to designate existing park land areas or parts of park land areas as nature preserves. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-225-89 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 the following described property from PL, public lands, to NP, nature preserve: That *4111. portion of Bicentennial Park lying west of Bicentennial Parkway to the Golf Course fence and north of the tennis courts to the boundary of the Deer Creek Subdivision; that portion of Rotary Park lying north of the ball diamonds to Seven Mile Road; that portion of Blue Grass Park lying south of a line starting 100' north of Ladywood Avenue and drawn west to Interstate 275/96; Grandview Park in its entirety and Windridge Park in its entirety; 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #10-226-89 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 south of Seven Mile Road on the east side of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 and on the west side of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, and also, property located south of Eight Mile Road between I-275 and Newburgh in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, '�•► from R-7, multiple family residential, to R-C, condominium residential; and 10896 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #10-227-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 587th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 1989 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #10-228-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-8-28 by Southeastern Michigan Management Co. for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Say Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a retail sales building on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 be denied for the following reasons: 1) The proposed use would be detrimental to the area because it would not provide a compatible relationship with the adjoining shopping center so as to provide an integral vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. 2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote development that will not jeopardize the safety, health and welfare of the people who use the facility. 3) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the use, the site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area. 4) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. `.. 10897 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. vqmo, On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 588th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on October 17, 1989 was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Raymoga W. Tent, Secretary ATTEST: L 6/L William LaPine, Chairman jg r..