The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-06-04 14946 MINUTES OF THE 725th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ... LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 4, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 725th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg Messrs. John J. Nagy,* Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and 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. Alanskas, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-1-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#838-95, requesting to rezone property in the Dohany Subdivision located south of Seven Mile Road between Gillman and Harrison Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-1. Mr. Miller 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 they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, would you take a moment please and comment for the benefit of the audience on the reason that this public hearing is being held and what the impact will be, if it is successful, on the current residents. 14947 Mr. Shane: This petition was began on the basis of a Council resolution which `,w requested the Planning Commission to hold a hearing on this area. The actual resolution asked the Planning Commission to consider rezoning all of the property west of Lathers, which is the center street in the area outlined in red, from RUF to another appropriate zoning district, and this is much like a petition which precipitated from a Council resolution back in 1993 which asked the Planning Commission to look at rezoning the whole Dohany Subdivision for the reason that they felt all the lots in the area do not meet the RUF requirements, that is one-half acre size or more, but they do meet the requirements of a much lesser zoning district, so they asked the Planning Commission in 1993 to take a look at that. The result of that petition was that the Planning Commission recommended the rezoning to an R-1 district, which is the smallest lot size the zoning district permits, and the City Council did not concur in that, and therefore the area at this point in time remains an RUF district. Recently, because the Harrison Woods Subdivision, which was mentioned a few minutes ago, which is a development along Harrison Avenue south of Seven Mile Road, provides lots in the R-1 category, seems to have now encroached into the Dohany Subdivision, the Council asked the Planning Commission to take another look at Dohany Subdivision, and the Planning Commission, upon receiving the Council resolution, actually expanded the resolution to include the *go, entire Dohany Subdivision. As I mentioned earlier, the lots in the area, none of which, at least only one or two, meet the RUF zoning district, most of the lots in the district would meet the R-1 zoning district, and there are some lots which would meet no zoning district because they are smaller than the R-1 district, but the majority comply with the R-1 district regulations and that is really the reason the Planning Commission is considering an R-1 zoning district as opposed to the current RUF district or any other residential district in the area. As indicated by Mr. Miller, a number of these lots are jointly owned. That is to say there is not always one house on one lot but there are several different sizes, but in analyzing the area the vast majority would meet the R-1 zoning district requirement. That is the purpose of the hearing to determine whether or not that is the proper thing to do. Mr. Engebretson: What would the benefits be to the property owners and what is the downside if this is successful? Mr. Shane: The benefits would be that those properties that aren't currently developed would have a better chance of being developed in an R-1 district because they meet the size requirements, particularly lots along Harrison Avenue for example, none of which are developed, they could be developed in 60 foot lot widths, which R-1 requires, and therefore 14948 provides those property owners with some opportunities for development. Also the owners of property which do not meet RUF district regulations, if they are to build on the lot or add to the ones that are already there, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because they would have deficient lots under the RUF district. The R-1 district would remove that problem on most of the lots, and even at the R-1 district there will be a few which do not meet even the R-1 district. They would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they wanted to add on to their homes. Basically the up side is some of the lots may be developed further and most of the lots would not be encumbered by the fact they would be deficient in size. Mr. Morrow: Harrison is basically an undeveloped street, is it not? Mr. Shane: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: That would almost have to be improved to open up the back lots off Lathers? Mr. Shane: It could be an extension basically of the Harrison Woods type of development. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner in this matter, we will go to the audience `41., to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this zoning change. Elaine Daghir: I live on Brentwood. I find it a little strange that everybody keeps referring to Harrison Avenue when it doesn't exist. There are woods through there and an easement but there is no street yet. Furthermore, the Harrison Woods Subdivision has been supposedly underway for a year and a half. Nothing has happened. They have torn the woods down, nothing else, no building, no attempt at a street. I would also like to know if the red line marks the entire outline of the Dohany Subdivision? Mr. Shane: No it doesn't. What it excepts is the area encumbered by Harrison Woods Subdivison and the commercial lots along Seven Mile Road, basically. Ms. Daghir: The houses between supposed Harrison and Brentwood are not part of Dohany? Mr. Shane: They are not part of Dohany Subdivision. Ms. Daghir: About a year and a half ago there was a petition to change the designation for the lots between Lathers and Brentwood, and the 14949 Brentwood Neighborhood Association was firmly against that. We bought our houses because we like to have the woods in our backyards. o... We really don't want a street and a close by neighbor. Mr. Engebretson: Where did you say you lived? Ms. Daghir: On Brentwood. I find my backyard a good decompression chamber. I am a high school chemistry teacher in the inner city. I really don't want a street at the end of my back yard. I really don't want a house at the end of my back yard. I ask that you remember that there was opposition to the changes a year and a half ago and as far as the Brentwood Neighborhood Association goes, it is still opposed. Mr. Engebretson: Do you represent the neighborhood association? Ms. Daghir: No not officially. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to comment to you the reference to Harrison as a street, albeit a paper street. It is not an unusual process in matters like this where there are streets like this through the City that haven't been developed but they have been defined and they are anticipated to be developed at some point in time so people can utilize the land. Regarding that subdivision, Harrison Woods, Mr. Shane do you have any status on that? Mr. Shane: I understand some of the underground work has been completed. Mr. Engebretson: So she will probably see some activity up there. Mr. Shane: I am sure. Ms. Daghir: The developer of that property was planning $250,000 price range for those houses. I don't know why he would want small houses surrounding those luxury homes. Mr. Engebretson: The proposed lots, if I understand correctly, would be for the most part the same as this subdivision. It would be compatible with that. They would both be R-1. Art Esper, 18189 Lathers: I also own the lot behind my house which is 18222 Harrison. I have a few questions. I own a 40 foot lot. I am retired. If Harrison is extended, and they put in water, sewer and a paved road, I am wondering what it will cost me with a 40 foot lot in taxes. How much will my taxes go up? I use the property. I have a garden on it. I have gardened it for 30 years. I have a question. I would like to know how 14950 much my taxes will go up, and what I will be assessed for the paving, the water and the sewer? Mr. Engebretson: Regrettably sir we are not in a position to answer those issues. Mr. Esper: There are a lot of people on Lathers that own the lot behind their house that are retired. If it came down to an increase in taxes and an assessment for the water, the sewer and the paving, they would probably be forced to sell their lots. Mr. Engebretson: Those things are not done casually. The installation of sewer and water, streets, etc., the City Council holds a number of hearings on matters such as that. First to determine whether or not it is appropriate to do that. It is a process called determining necessity, and if they determine that there is necessity to undertake such development, then they go through a very involved process to determine what should that kind of improvement look like, and it is only at that time that there can be a determination made as to what the costs are for the various land owners. It is not really within our purview to deal with those issues. We are not going to be able to address your questions. It is a City Council matter. Mr. Esper: It has to start someplace. �.- Mr. Engebretson: That process starts and ends with the City Council. Zoning matters start here and conclude with the City Council. Mr. Esper: When and if you put Harrison in, it is going to end at Curtis. I am the third house off Curtis, and that is going to increase traffic in front of me because the road dead ends there. There is a light at Lathers and Seven. They will just come around my corner and up. Mr. Engebretson: That is a fact of life. Mr. Esper: If I want to fight this, how can I start? Mr. Engebretson: You are doing the right thing to get your comments on record here. It would certainly be appropriate that whatever happens here tonight that you should participate in the City Council hearings as well. You could call their office tomorrow and ask that you be informed when that meeting will occur. They go through a series of meetings, perhaps about four or five in all before a matter like this gets settled. This will probably be the only meeting we will end up on this matter. The vast majority of the issues dealing with just the zoning occur at City Council level, and then if the zoning is successful, at some time in the future if 14951 that street would become a candidate to be extended, then they would run it through that other process that I just described a few moments No.., ago. It is a very long involved process but it is important that you get your name on file with the City Council office as an interested person. I suspect you would be notified in any case because of your location to this property but it would still be a good idea to call them. Mr. Esper: In Livonia are we going to fill up every postage size area that has trees and woods on it for development? Mr. Engebretson: I can't answer that. Mr. Shane: I would like to just say that if the property is rezoned, that in and of itself,does not make the development of this property imminent. All that does is change the designation on the property to make it easier for someone to develop it. That doesn't automatically say that the street is going to be extended or lots will be put in. Mr. Esper: Why do we have to do it? Mr. Shane: It is the first step. There is a lot of property in the City which is mis- zoned. These lots are well short of what they should be for the current zoning district and it is a way to clean up the zoning map and get the *owzoning on the property but that in itself does not mean all the property will be developed tomorrow. A lot of other things would have to happen before that could take place. Mr. Esper: But this is the first step? Mr. Shane: This is the first step. Mr. Esper: I oppose the first step. Mr. Morrow: It was pretty well said. I would just like to reinforce some of the things. The City Council asked for a recommendation, and we will see what we recommend here tonight. We recommended once before, and they decided not to rezone it, so it doesn't automatically mean it is going to be rezoned. Most of the questions, if not all the questions you asked, will be addressed at the City Council. We are just going to recommend the zoning question tonight. It doesn't mean the land will be developed. There is nothing underfoot to develop Harrison. It is strictly a zoning issue that may or may not be changed. Your input further up the line, as well as here, will be taken under consideration at the time the decisions are made. 14952 Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, I am getting a little confused. Is the worry here that Harrison Avenue is going to be extended and that the people on Noow, Lathers are going to sell off the back portions of their property and new homes are going to go back there? Otherwise, I don't see where this Harrison could go through here. Mr. Shane: I think that is a concern of some of the neighbors that that would happen. Mr. LaPine: How deep are those lots on Lathers? Mr. Shane: About 135 feet in depth and so are the ones on Harrison. Mr. LaPine: Then they could sell off the back end? Mr. Shane: They could sell off the back half, which isn't developed. They really have two lots there, one on Lather and one on Harrison. All it does is provide an opportunity. Mr. LaPine: I understand now but there are no plans as far as we know of that happening? Mr. Shane: No. Mr. McCann: Looking at the map, the Brentwood Subdivision is still RUF and at most you could only develop the eastern portion of the street, which would limit the liability of going ahead and a private developer putting his own street through there? Mr. Shane: That is a fair statement. Mr. McCann: So the chances of this actually going through are not great, it is just the property is not properly zoned. Brent Tipton, 18361 Lathers: Which is an unfortunate thing because I own three lots, which means now I have three lots on the back end of Harrison also. When we purchased that property a few years ago, we also remodeled the house back to a 1930 style farmhouse. To go and make these lots smaller in dimension to bring in more houses, is not a very pleasant thought. Our backyard, which is three of those lots on Harrison, has a horse barn, a large play area for my kids. I don't need two high-traffic streets front yard and back yard for my family. One of the main reason we moved there was because of the classic "country living in the city" that we were fortunate enough to find. I hope we are not unfortunate enough to lose it. My family and I are opposed to the rezoning. We 14953 don't see any necessity to it. We enjoy the woods. We enjoy the privacy and still being in a relatively City situation. Mr. Engebretson: What streets are you between? Mr. Tipton: I live on Lathers at the corner of Pickford, three lots. Mr. Engebretson: You have a lot of leverage with the land you own there by simply retaining ownership, and that has a big impact on your area. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, the west side of Lathers, what percentage of the homes, some of them are 40'x180' is that what you said, or 135'? Mr. Shane: 135'. Mr. McCann: Would those qualify in the RUF zoning with the deep lots? Mr. Shane: It is possible. If they go all the way to Harrison, some of them would. Mr. McCann: Would it make sense to the staff, since it is abutting RUF property on the west, to make Lathers Avenue the defining line? Obviously the east side of Lathers is R-1. Mr. Shane: There would still be a lot of lots along Lathers that would not comply with the RUF. There would be a few that would, but the vast majority would not. You would still have the same problem although there is no doubt a few, perhaps 10%, might comply. Mr. McCann: So we aren't solving the problem? Mr. Shane: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-82-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-2-1-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #838-95, requesting to rezone property in the Dohany Subdivision located south of Seven Mile Road between Gillman and Harrison Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-2-1-4 be approved for the following reasons: 14954 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning district which permits lot sizes more nearly equal to the majority of the existing lots in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the development of additional residential facilities in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-2-19 by Gary M. Mulka requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Priscilla Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Miller 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 they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found. 1. The proposed seating will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess seating (40 seats proposed - 30 seats allowed). 2. The existing parking is deficient by 18 parking spaces (113) spaces required - 95 spaces provided). 3. Sections of the protective wall are leaning and in danger of falling. A tree has fallen on the wall and has cracked and bowed the wall in several places. Mr. Morrow: H, for group commercial centers, I see 113 spaces are required. Through this waiver does that increase the number of spaces required? Mr. Shane: No. Mr. Morrow: Regardless of the number of seats? 14955 Mr. Shane: Right. this waiver use would not increase or decrease their requirement. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make sure, I know they are deficient but I wanted to see if this would affect it even further. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium. Dan Schornack: I am here to represent Mr. Mulka and Mr. Pita on this petition. We have presented to the Planning Commission a brief summary of what a Mr. Pita shop looks like from an interior basis both as a service counter seating area, and, of course, all Mr. Pita restaurants have a special area set aside for children so when families dine at Mr. Pita, their children have other things to do to occupy their time. We did receive a copy of the Senior Building Inspector's report. We have met with the owner of the building. He has been out to review the screening wall deficiencies and has promised that those areas that are cracked or bowed or in need of repair, will, in fact, be repaired. We have also done a serious study over the last two weeks of the existing tenants that are in the shopping center and the parking situation, and while we do note through the Building Inspector's report that there appears to be a deficiency as it regards parking, let me assure members of this Commission there has never been, and we would not anticipate our being a tenant in this �.. center would create, any parking burdens to the other tenants or to the area. I pointed out in a brief summary of what a Mr. Pita shop is one key factor because there is residential abutting us to the rear, there is no cooking on premises of a Mr. Pita. Often times we have found that some residents have some concerns or fears as it regards odors or the smells of items being cooked and being vented out of the building. Because there is no cooking in a Mr. Pita, there is no air ventilation systems, which would kick out or cause any odors to proliferate throughout the single family neighborhood. We would appreciate the opportunity to locate in Livonia. Mr. Mulka himself is a resident of Livonia, and that is why we sought very hard to seek a location for a Mr. Pita Sandwich Shop here, and would appreciate your recommendation for approval tonight. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to address Mr. Mulka. How many Mr. Pitas do they have in the metropolitan area? Mr. Mulka: There are 12 right now. Mr. Alanskas: Is this your first attempt at one of these? Mr. Mulka: Yes it is. 14956 Mr. Alanskas: Out of the 12, how many seats on the average do they have in their .,.. restaurants? Mr. Mulka: The average Mr. Pita is between 1600 and 2400 square feet and has between 40 and 52 seats. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your business is carry out? Mr. Mulka: Approximately 65% is carry out and delivery. Mr. Alanskas: You feel you do need the 46 seats instead of 30? Mr. Mulka: In order to maintain the quality of customer service that Mr. Pita has to this point maintained, we would like to have this restaurant be a prototypical Mr. Pita restaurant with 40 seats. Mr. Alanskas: Would it be a problem to go in at first with the 30 and then down the road add the 16? Mr. Mulka: No sir it wouldn't. Mr. LaPine: You stated all the food is brought in so you don't cook any food there ,` so there are no odors. There is going to be a certain amount of garbage. Are you going to have your own dumpster in the back or do you dispose of your garbage some other way? Mr. Mulka: We will be bringing in our own dumpster. Mr. LaPine: I notice on this menu, the hours. Are those the same hours? Are you going to be open from noon until 8:00 p.m. on Sunday and 8:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and until 10:00 p.m. on Saturday? Mr. Mulka: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Basically all you sell are sandwiches? Mr. Mulka: Sandwiches, salads, soup. Mr. LaPine: Have you taken any type of survey? Do you feel this could be a successful restaurant? The problem is once that restaurant goes in there, we have a problem. It can always be a restaurant. Something else can go in there and take it over. Are you sure this can be a successful restaurant at this location? 14957 Mr. Mulka: I would like Frank Lombardi, who is the franchiser, to answer that �.- question. I am sure he can give you some information. Frank Lombardi: I am the franchiser for Mr. Pita. First of all, if it is an unsuccessful venture, Mr. Pita is no different really than a typical retail shop. Once again we don't have any heating environment so there is nothing complicated. It is a matter of our units, which are just brought in portably to be moved in and out. So it is a very easy transformation. Fortunately, in our short brief history, we never had that problem arise. We are very proud of the success of Mr. Pita. For the sandwich industry we are breaking records. Hopefully you will be very proud of our restaurant. Mr. LaPine: Is this franchise strictly a Michigan corporation? Mr. Lombardi: It is a Michigan corporation. We are just now starting to expand throughout the country. Mr. LaPine: So basically all your stores are in the Metropolitan Detroit Area? Mr. Lombardi: That is correct. `, Mr. LaPine: How long have you been in business? Mr. Lombardi: Since 1993. Mr. LaPine: During that period of time most of your stores have been successful? Mr. Lombardi: Very. Mr. Morrow: Has any lease been signed or is everything contingent on this approval? Mr. Lombardi: The lease has been fully executed but the lease is contingent upon approval for the use permit. We can't operate without that special use permit. Mr. Morrow: We have had people come before us that had signed a lease before they got approved. Mr. Lombardi: This particular shopping center is owned by Mr. Joseph Leone, who is also a business resident. I don't know if he personally lives in Livonia but he has owned this retail center for a period of time and he knows the rules and regulations as it regards operating businesses in Livonia. That is a contingency. 14958 Mr. Morrow: I recall when Mr. Leone came in to put in that shopping center. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to do any outside renovations on the store at all? In other words, there is not going to be a yellow canopy or any other type of roof sign? Is any of that going to be on this building? Mr. Mulka: That is our logo. We will follow all the guidelines and all the sign ordinances. Mr. LaPine: The question is, will this be on the building? Mr. Mulka: Mr. Pita and the logo and the awning below it, that is our trademark, just not that size. Mr. LaPine: But it will be on the building. Mr. Mulka: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I can assume that the inside is similar to what you showed in all these photographs? Mr. Schornack: The color schemes are the same in all of our restaurants. Mr. LaPine: There will not be any mansard roof like it shows here on this store? Mr. Schornack: No. That is a freestanding Mr. Pita. It is not located in a shopping center. Mr. Piercecchi: Has the staff informed you that if you wish to put 40 seats in there, it is zoned C-1, and in a C-1 zone it only calls for a limited restaurant, which is 30 seats? Have you been told of that? Mr. Schornack: Yes and a petition has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals in anticipation. We did not want to be premature in bringing this to the Zoning Board of Appeals but as one of the other members of the Commission asked before, certainly the uniformity of trying to continue what other Mr. Pita restaurants have done would be our goal and objective. However, in the trial period just to establish that there are no parking problems, that there is no congestion, would cause us to delay seeking that Zoning Board of Appeals approval. Certainly I believe to get started and to get open and operating, we would comply with the ordinance requirements. 14959 Mr. Piercecchi: It is not our policy to violate our own ordinance. I would think the best thing that we could do for you would be to table this until you �.. bring in some revised plans or get the Zoning Board approval for the additional seating. Mr. Engebretson: Has a date been set for the Zoning Board appeal? Mr. Schornack: We have not received a notification yet but it has been filed. I would ask this Commission's understanding that if they could recommend approval under 30 seats required for a special use permit so we may proceed with the types of construction and those things necessary to open, then we would then go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to see if an additional seating capacity could be allowed. But with your recommendation for approval we could proceed with getting started. Mr. Piercecchi: In other words you say you are willing to start with 30? Mr. Schornack: I am saying that we would be willing to start with 30 and then establish our cause when required. Mr. Piercecchi: This would require sir, if a tabling motion were made, and I think it should be Mr. Chairman, that you revise your plans and come back to this board with or without the Zoning Board approval with respect to ,,` the number of customer seats and parking. Mr. Engebretson: Dan, if he gets Zoning Board approval then he doesn't need to come back. You said with or without. I just wanted to make sure you understood. Mr. Lombardi: From a franchisee's perspective, it would cause a great strain to table this for a new drawing and to go back, from a practical standpoint to eliminate two booths. Again, this gentleman is not working. He is training and it is a considerable expense. He has a family. To prolong this for another 30 days when in reality what you are doing is talking about taking out two booths. Mr. Morrow: As it relates to the parking, they must already have a variance for the center. Is that correct? Mr. Shane: They do not. I think through the passage of time, the ordinance for one reason or another, has been violated in that regard. There is no variance. Mr. Morrow: The deficiency has always existed then. 14960 Mr. Shane: That is how it exists now. I am not sure when it began. Mr. Morrow: As it relates to the sign, is it their intent to bring it back to us? Can we condition this to bring it back? Mr. Shane: If that is your desire. Make that a condition of your approval. Mr. Morrow: You are willing to bring it down to 30 seats and want to move it forward. Mr. Schornack: Absolutely. Mr. Engebretson: I wish they had taken that position before tonight. You did agree to go from 46 to 40. Had you made the proposal to go to 30 and then file your petition with the Zoning Board, it might have been easier for us to handle but I don't think we are prepared to deal with this tonight because we saw the 40 in conflict with our ordinance and we find ourselves in a position where we have very little choice but to let the process work now. Mr. Mulka: I think there was a misunderstanding about the 46 seats. Originally when I submitted the plans and they were reviewed, there were six seats that actually were child's play area that were interpreted as being *ow counter seating, which was not the case. Originally the application was for 42 seats but when the plans were submitted it was brought to my attention by the Planning Department that the plans only showed seats so we amended the application to ask for only 40 seats. Mr. Engebretson: But you knew about the limit of 30? Mr. Mulka: Yes sir but we were told as I began the process, being new at this I went to City Hall and inquired, and I was told the way to proceed was to apply for the use of waiver and simultaneously apply for the Zoning Board of Appeals waiver to get the extra ten seats. I basically followed the instructions I was given in hopes of expediting the process. Mr. Engebretson: You just got on our agenda too quickly it looks like. Mr. Shane: The problem is the Zoning Board, unless they do something unusual, never acts on a request like this until after the waiver use has been acted on. That is why the Planning Commission and Council have to make some kind of decision before he goes to the Zoning Board. Mr. Engebretson: Some of these thing go first to the Zoning Board and some come here first, and I get them confused. 14961 Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, the parking, will that require a variance from the ZBA? Mr. Shane: No because he is not adding to the parking. The parking requirements exist there now so this petitioner or any petitioner that occupies that building under the group commercial concept, does not add to the parking problem. The problem exists now. Mr. McCann: The restaurant use doesn't create higher? Mr. Shane: No because under the group commercial concept, is a more stringent parking requirement, taking into consideration those uses which have higher parking requirements and those uses that have lower parking requirements. Therefore, every use that comes in does not have to meet a parking requirement. The whole center needs to comply. This petitioner is not causing a problem. Mr. McCann: There is nothing that would stop us for approving 30 seats and allowing him to go forward if he understood that if the ZBA did not give him the variance for more than 30 seats, then that would be the maximum amount he would ever be able to use? Mr. Shane: If you condition it for 30 seats and ZBA gives him 40, he has to come back. Mr. McCann: Your understanding is sir with 30 seats you could survive through the terms of your lease if the ZBA or the Planning Commission or Council decided that you should only have 30? Mr. Mulka: Yes sir I believe I can. Mr. LaPine: Have you filed your appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals yet? Mr. Mulka: Yes sir. It was filed two days subsequent to filing this. Mr. LaPine: It probably will be on their next agenda I would assume. If we approve the waiver here tonight for 30 seats, then the process goes on to Council. I would assume the Council wouldn't act on it until such time as the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision catches up with it. Mr. Shane: The Council will act first. The problem with getting on the Zoning Board of Appeals' agenda is that there is such a long lead time. It doesn't mean it can get there any quicker. It just means when the Council acts, they will be ready to get on the Zoning Board of Appeals' agenda. 14962 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, �., Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-2-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-83-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-2-19 by Gary M. Mulka requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Priscilla Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-2-19 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats of not to exceed thirty(30) seats and also subject to the following conditions: 1) That if any more seats are to be added, it must be taken to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2) That all signage shall be brought back before the Planning Commission for their review and approval 3) That the protective wall be repaired as set forth in the letter dated May 24, 1996 from the Inspection Department. 4) That a dumpster shall be provided. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning 2) That the subject use has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That this use meets the parking requirements as currently in effect at this location. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. 14963 '�.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-2-20 by DiComo Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Miller 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. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office has no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Dead brush, debris and piles of dirt need to be removed from the east and south property line. 2. The mansard roof needs minor repair. 3. The parking lot is in marginal condition. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. ori. Dan DiComo: I am with DiComo Associates, Architects, representing Mr. Pisto and the proposed tenant, the Corned Beef House. We are proposing to utilize a 6,000 sq. ft. portion, 80'x75' portion of the building that is closest to Eight Mile Road for a deli, cafeteria-style restaurant. All of the seating that is proposed to go into the facility is booth-type seating. There will be carry-out, deli-type sandwiches and also allow them to be able to sit down and eat those sandwiches, and also a hot food portion, which is the cafeteria style. There are no proposed changes to the existing conditions of the property. The owner has agreed, obviously, to take care of the situations that were brought up by Dave Woodcox in his letter that was read by H in regards to the two items as far as the dead brush and debris and the mansard roof repairs. Those items will be addressed prior to occupancy, if it is granted that this tenant can occupy the building. Mr. Engebretson: What about the parking lot? Mr. DiComo: From the time I got this letter I have not been able to personally inspect the parking lot to know what portion, or if the entire lot, is in disrepair and what needs to get repaired. 14964 Mr. LaPine: The whole parking lot is in disrepair but there are some bad spots there. The debris to the north, behind the building looks like it has been there !..� for a long time. It looks like someone came in there with a dump truck and dumped it there but unfortunately I don't think the petitioner had anything to do with this. Someone just found a nice open spot. Do you have any plans to show what the inside of the restaurant is going to look like? Mr. DiComo: I have a plan. Mr. LaPine: The other question I had, at one time there was a corned beef restaurant, I think it was the same name as this one, in the Northridge Shopping Center. Is that the same restaurant? Mr. DiComo: It is the same business. That shopping center did not allow for the owner to have any sit-down customers. Mr. LaPine: So it was all carry out. It didn't look like it was doing that well. Mr. DiComo: It was the same business that was operating in the other shopping center. They came to a point where they realized that they were not allowed to have people sit down and eat in the facility and that was, they felt, deterring business. That is why they are now trying to move `, into this facility to allow people to sit down and eat. (Mr. DiComo presented the plans.) Mr. LaPine: Is this buffet style? Is this a typical cafeteria where you go in and you buy whatever you want and you pay for each individual item? Mr. DiComo: What you would end up doing is walking down the line and then paying at the end of the line and then sitting after that. Mr. LaPine: Do you have a specific place where people go in for carry outs? Mr. DiComo: That is what we are referring to as a deli. Mr. LaPine: So if someone wants to come in there and just buy a corned beef sandwich and a drink, he goes over to the deli section. He doesn't have to go through the cafeteria line. Is that correct? Mr. DiComo: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I hope you are successful there. That store has been empty. I think we have a children's fitness center and some clothing store in there. My 14965 concern is because of the way it faces. It faces east so people coming from the west going east, are not going to know you are there. Are �.• you going to have any signage on the side of this building anywhere? Mr. DiComo: At this point in time we are not proposing any signage but yes we would come back and ask for signage. Mr. LaPine: Eventually you will have something there because if you don't have something there, no one is going to know you are in there. I think that was one of their big problems when they were in Northridge Commons. They were way in the back and the only people that knew they were in there were the people that went to that center. Mr. DiComo: This accomplishes two things for the owner and that is visibility,just like you stated, and also the fact that they can have people sit down. Mr. Piercecchi: H, I noticed your comments here #4 states that the location and size of the proposed use, its nature and intensity 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. What neighborhood are we referring to? Mr. Shane: As you know, we provide you with both approving and denying resolutions. Mr. Piercecchi: I know but I was wondering what neighborhood you were referring to. Mr. Shane: That is the neighborhood that is basically south of the center and the neighboring commercial areas. Mr. Piercecchi: That is a long ways away from it. Mr. Shane: Like I said it is a resolution you can use or not use depending on how you feel about it. Mr. Engebretson: Neighborhood can mean commercial buildings too Mr. Piercecchi. Mr. Morrow: Mr. DiComo, is this an initial operation for this person or does he have other restaurants in the area? Mr. DiComo: Besides the one mentioned that he had in the shopping center on Eight Mile Road? Mr. Morrow: I guess that one was well hidden because I live over there and I didn't know it was there. 14966 Mr. DiComo: It is not a chain store. Mr. Morrow: So this is his initial one outside of the one he tried to do before. Also Mr. Shane, I think Eight Mile is finally going to come to fruition. Is it now? It seems to me that the County and the City have agreed on some dates. Mr. Shane: I think that is true. Mr. Morrow: We are all looking forward to having that improved. It seems to me I heard that is going to go forward fairly soon. Mr. Shane: I think you are correct but I can't give you a date. Mr. Morrow: I wouldn't want you to give me a date. I just wanted you to confirm that you heard the same. Mr. Shane: That is my understanding. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-2-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-84-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-2-20 by DiComo Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-2-20 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats of not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) seats and also subject to the following: 1) That the sign package shall be brought back before the Planning Commission for their review and approval. 2) That the conditions referenced in the letter dated May 20, 1996 from the Inspection Department be addressed and accomplished prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. 3) That the landscaping be upgraded in an appropriate manner. 14967 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-3-1 by Jeffrey Winkler, Winkler Buildings, Inc. requesting to vacate a portion of a ten foot wide public easement on Lot 213, Sunset Hills Subdivision, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Curtis Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller 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 there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement area. Accordingly, their office does not have any objections to this vacating petition. Mr. Engebretson: Presumably Mr. Shane there were no other utilities that were necessary? Mr. Shane: Since they haven't responded, we have to assume that. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present. Jeff Winkler: I am Jeff Winkler of Winkler Builders. I can answer any questions but what we ended up with was an error that caused this. There was actually a 20 foot easement. Ten foot was established for storm sewer back in the 50s and what they did was turn it around and they put the storm sewer across the back of the lot. That storm sewer runs north 14968 and south so they never used that portion and it wasn't picked up on the paper work. When the survey was done we picked up the 10 foot ',our easment. This ten foot easement will still be there. The sewer does run along the north side of the property, and there will also be an additional five feet if I take five of the original ten. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #6-85-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-2-3-1 by Jeffrey Winkler, Winkler Buildings, Inc., requesting to vacate a portion of a ten foot wide public easement on Lot 213, Sunset Hills Subdivision, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Curtis Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-2-3-1 be approved as to the vacating of only the south one-half(1/2) of the subject easement for the following reasons: 1) That the subject portion of the easement is no longer needed to protect any public utilities; 2) That the Engineering Department recommends vacating only the south 1/2 of the easement; and 3) That no public utility company objects to the subject vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 8.50D with regard to real estate signs. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, could you make a couple of comments relative to the background leading up to this proposal. 14969 Mr. Shane: This is a proposal that comes from the Planning Commission, which attempts to gain some additional control over non-residential real estate r.w signs, in that the ordinance amendment would require a sign permit and the time of the permit would not exceed six months although there is a renewal for another six months. So essentially it would require a permit to erect non-residential real estate signs with some time limit. Mr. Engebretson: Specifically I will just read this one sentence that is being added to the ordinance. "Such signs shall require a sign permit and may be erected for a time period not to exceed six (6) months from the date of issuance of the sign permit; provided, however, that such permit may be renewed by the Director for a second six (6) month period", which is exactly what Mr. Shane just described. Mr. LaPine: This incorporates the new language that the staff talked about from our original one that was submitted. Is that correct? Mr. Shane: I think what we neglected to do was decrease the size from 32 sq. ft. to 16 sq. ft. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to do that? Mr. Shane: Sure. Mr. LaPine: At the end of the first six months, then they can get an additional six months. How many times can they get a renewal? Mr. Shane: Just once. You are giving them one year and then they would have to get a new permit. Mr. LaPine: After a year's time, they have to start all over again? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, I understood from the study that we were going to delete everything after"that such signs shall require a sign permit", because it was my understanding that any sign that requires a sign permit automatically has six months and then the Director has the option to extend it six months. Mr. Shane: That is true except we felt it wouldn't hurt to reiterate it. Mr. McCann: Okay because your notes from the study session said it wasn't necessary language. 14970 Mr. Shane: I just feel it is prudent to repeat it. ,., Mr. McCann: After the one-year period, the applicant comes back and asks for a new permit, would there be an investigation or would the Director have certain requirements in order for him to get a new permit? Mr. Shane: What they would do is make sure that the sign he is asking for a new permit on, is in fact the same sign, it is still 16 sq. ft. and still located at the same location. Other than that, if he pays his fees and follows the rules. Mr. McCann: What I am looking at, if he gets a sign permit for six months, gets an extension for six months, he can come back and get a new sign permit for another six months just by paying a permit fee. Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: Maybe we should incorporate something into the sign ordinance which states that on places that have office buildings, for example, or shopping centers that are 80% or 90% filled, or some figure, at such point they might not be entitled to an extension after that. Otherwise we are really creating a task instead of doing anything to delete the signs. Mr. Shane: The permit gives you an opportunity to track and make sure the sign hasn't been altered in any way. You pay a fee to put the sign up and if there is a tenant space which is not occupied, I think you would have a right to advertise that fact as long as you follow the rules and pay the fee. Mr. McCann: My concern is if you take an office building 30,000 to 100,000 sq. ft., you are always going to have anywhere from 1200 to 2000 sq. ft. available. The purpose of the sign ordinance was we were very concerned in the City about the permanent signs that go up but that we have no control over when and if it is necessary for a painted 2x4 and 4x8 sheet of wood to go up. Mr. Shane: I think one of the problems you are going to have is an enforcement situation. The Inspector is going to have a difficult time knowing when 80% of the building is occupied. Mr. McCann: Wouldn't that be something that would be required in the application form? 14971 Mr. Shane: I think it would be something that would be very difficult to track. I think you are on the right track by providing a vehicle for the Building *ft/ Department to have some handle on it and that is the permit process, which they don't have now. Anyone can go out and put up a sign, which you want to get away from. You may not fully get away from that except this time they have to come to the City and ask for something. As long as it is done right, at least it is a way to track it. Mr. Morrow: Would it be productive perhaps after one year to reduce the sign again? Mr. Engebretson: That may be something we can consider at another time. Mr. Morrow: I know where Mr. McCann is coming from. We have fairly extensive ground signs and then all of a sudden this commercial venture takes an exception to it. Maybe we can try to refine it later on. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #6-86-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 on Petition 96-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 8.50D with regard to real estate signs, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-2-6-1 be approved as modified for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment is needed in order for the City to exercise additional control over the size, duration and location of the subject real estate signs; and 2) That the proposed language amendment provides the City with a more reasonable and equitable method of controlling real estate signs. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: I am just considering at the end of a one-year period, if we added language that after the permit has been issued, a new permit shall not be issued unless the subject property is less than 90% occupied. If they are occupied 90% or more, which most landlords would consider full occupancy, they would not be entitled to one. If it were less than 90% the language would give the owners, I think it would be upon the 14972 citizens who fill out the applications to state in there yes we are less than 90% occupied. I think this is a fair percentage. Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with that. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#376-95, to determine whether a possible amendment to Section 2.10(4) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made to increase the square footage of attached garages to 900 square feet without accessory building, with a limit of vehicle openings to three, with provisions regarding detached garages and lot coverage percent (including front yards, side yards and rear yards) to remain as is. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane could you give us the background on this. Mr. Shane: This comes to you pursuant to a Council resolution, which asks you to amend the ordinance as described. The thought here is to allow larger attached garages in those instances where there are no other accessory buildings such as sheds or detached garages on the site. This would bring them more in line with all of the new homes that are being built. Nor. The ordinance states you can have a 900 sq. ft. attached garage if you have no accessory building and as long as all the other requirements of the ordinance are met. This is the second public hearing because there was a misconception of what the Council wanted at the first meeting. Mr. LaPine: I see a problem here. The problem I see is what we are saying is as long as you have an attached garage, you can have 900 sq. ft. If you have a large enough lot why can't you put up a 900 sq. ft. detached garage? Why do you say because a guy has a large enough parcel, he can have 900 sq. ft. for an attached three-car garage but a fellow that has a parcel of land and he wants a three-car garage in the back of his house, he is not allowed to have it. To me we have a problem. Mr. Shane: I think the reason for that is we are trying to eliminate the possibility of somebody having a"business" in a second garage. That is the thrust of it. Mr. LaPine: And I opposed it the last time for that reason. I am getting the feeling here now if you have a large enough property you can put a three-car garage there and that isn't going to necessarily mean that three-car garage is going to be for three automobiles. You can use part of it for something else and keep that door down and have a couple of lathe 14973 machines in there or something else. You still have the same conflict no matter which way you go. I have a little problem with that. I don't �., think we should say one type of owner can have a three-car garage and another type of owner, even if he has the property, cannot have the three-car garage, and my concern is still the same with the attached as it was with the detached, the possibility of someone operating a business. I am not really opposed to it because I understand what they are trying to do here, because so many people have more than two cars, but I do see in some respects a little conflict here. Mr. Shane: If you look at the many houses being built in Livonia, 90% have three- car garages and that is the thrust to try to give other folks with enough room the same opportunity without opening up the situation where you might have these home occupations. There is always the possibility for you to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if you want that other accessory building. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engeretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was 'toy #6-87-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1996 on Petition 96-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #376-95, to determine whether a possible amendment to Section 2.10(4) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made to increase the square footage of attached garages to 900 square feet without accessory building, with a limit of vehicle openings to three, with the provisions regarding detached garages and lot coverage percent (including front yards, side yards and rear yards) to remain as is, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-2-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for a more reasonable size requirement for attached garages on larger lots; 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for attached garages of a size more in keeping with such garages currently being constructed while, at the same time, providing the City with adequate control over their location and nature. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. 14974 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution v„w adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-1-7 by Robert Lewis (Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P. Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-88-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-3-1-7 by Robert Lewis (Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution �.. adopted. Mr. Engebretson: We asked the petitioner at the last meeting to prepare a specific proposal as to precisely what it was he was planning to do with this rezoning proposal. I see we have a drawing in with our package here. Scott, could you briefly run through that please. Mr. Miller presented the plan. Mr. Engebretson: Do we know whether or not the petitioner intends to utilize all 12 of those spaces for the Winter Garden Bar? Mr. Miller: I was the one that drew this. I was told to come up with as much parking as I could. Mr. Morrow: On that protective wall, is there any input as far as how high the wall is, what the construction is? Mr. Miller: By the ordinance you can have five to seven feet. Mr. Morrow: Masonry construction? 14975 Mr. Shane: It has to be masonry construction and has to be between five and seven feet but you realize this is just a zoning issue now. What you asked �.. him to do was to come up with how he would use this property if it was rezoned. You can't condition zoning. Mr. Morrow: Why can't we talk about it? If I can't rely on a protective wall, I guess I can't vote for the zoning. Mr. Shane: You can. All I am saying is you can't base your approving resolution, if that is what you are going to do, on this plan. Mr. Morrow: We have to deal with the height of the wall. Mr. Shane: The ordinance requires five to seven feet. Mr. Morrow: Who makes that determination? Mr. Shane: If and when the property is developed, we will get it back for site plan approval. The determination is made then. Mr. Morrow: Will we see that? Mr. Shane: Yes at that point. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner want to add anything? Would you want to address those issues that we expressed interest in sir? Who is going to use this parking? Robert Lewis, 31256 Country Ridge Circle, Farmington Hills: I am the co-owner of Winter Garden Bar at the corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. I got together with the engineers from Mr. Nagy's office and we went over the amount of property I have in the back of the bar, and we determined that 12 spots would be about all I would be able to get out of it with the lanes in between so you could come in and out. I guess the best way to handle it would be a cement wall there, which I would go along with anything the Commission would require of me. I need additional parking back there. That has been a real problem. I have been in the area for 25 years and over that period of time on the south part of my building we had a greenbelt and then on the west side of the building we had a greenbelt which has taken a considerable amount of my parking so I feel this is one way I can remedy some of my parking problems. Mr. Engebretson: Who is going to park there? Mr. Lewis: Hopefully my customers. Mr. Engebretson: What does hopefully mean? I was there yesterday and I saw D & G parking all over the place. They were the only identifiable vehicles in the area but I saw spaces reserved for the bakery, spaces reserved for you. Will some of this be set aside for the bakery? Will part be set aside for D & G? How is that all going to work? 14976 Mr. Lewis: At one time I did approach these two businesses to see if, in fact, they Nem. would help defray the cost of tearing the house down for additional parking. Neither one of them seemed to be interested with helping with the costs. If I do make this for additional parking, it would be for my own use only. I would put signs up accordingly. Mr. LaPine: You know as well as I do Mr. Lewis you can put up all the signs you want up but people are going to park there if there is a vacant spot. They aren't going to pay any attention to signs, and I understand what you are trying to do, and I commend you for doing what you are trying to do. As I indicated at our study session, I know you have been there for many years. I have lived in the neighborhood for 18 years and I have never heard of any problems with your operation. You have the bar up for sale. You indicated that to us. I have no objection to giving you this zoning as long as you own the building because I know you run a good, clean operation. I don't know who you are selling this to, and I have no reason to believe whoever buys it is going to run the same type of bar, but on the other hand he could be there for six months and run a different type of operation, and these homeowners that abut that place are going to have all the noise and the carrying on that happens when people leave bars when they have had too much to `416.. drink. Have you talked to these two neighbors? Have they agreed that they are happy with the wall and this is going to alleviate their problem? Mr. Lewis: I don't know what I could possibly say to them. After our last meeting we met out in the hallway and one of the problems was if in fact it was approved and there was a great deal of parking out there, that a lot of the traffic would be going north into the subdivision. At that time one of the residents suggested that maybe if the City would put a sign up "Right Turn Only"to direct the traffic back towards Seven Mile that would eliminate many of the problems. We tried to discuss different things, such as a wall, and the lady bordering me from the area by Westmore there where the traffic would be going out, maybe a couple of trees or something. Mr. LaPine: If you sell the bar, are you selling the bar and the building that Dalley Carpet is in? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Dalley Carpet, from what I can see on this plan, only has two parking spots behind the building? Mr. Lewis: I think there are three or four. 14977 Mr. LaPine: How many seats do you have in the bar? Mr. Lewis: Probably around 50. `r.• Mr. LaPine: What is the total number of parking spaces you have? Mr. Lewis: I would say about 35. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 30, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-3-1-7 by Robert Lewis (Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-3-1-7 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents an encroachment of non- residential zoning into a residential area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent residential uses in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was �.► #6-89-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 30, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-3-1-7 by Robert Lewis (Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-3-1-7 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional off-street parking for the adjacent commercial uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of non-residential zoning into a residential 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. Morrow: As long as the petitioner realizes he will have to come back with a definitive plan showing ingress and egress, any signs that you are going to put up such as directional signs, and the type of wall you are going to put up if this zoning is approved. 14978 Mrs. Blomberg: I feel this business has outgrown this corner. I remember as a child going by there and there were only two lanes each way, and you had a prospering business and I guess you still do, but I feel this is an encroachment into the residential area where we have one house now and then another house later when the new owner takes over. That is why I can't support this petition. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I know it is usually not permitted but could you see if there is anyone here in the audience on this matter? Mr. Engebretson: Are there any homeowners regarding this particular issue here tonight. I have a motion on the floor. Is there any objection to hearing this lady speak? There was no objection. Nancy Heath, 19114 Westmore: That is directly across from the home that is going to be torn down where the parking lot will be. As we said at the last meeting, we are against the parking lot out there, but if the Commission does pass this proposal, there are a lot of things we want. If it was to be a parking lot what it would look like, where the driveways would be. Again, the second meeting we didn't see anything so we have no idea what we can argue against. We don't want a driveway coming out `"OP' at our front window. The brick wall, they were talking about putting one on the west side. We would like to see one on the east side for safety but maybe a berm in front of it so we are not really looking out at a brick wall, maybe some landscaping. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make you aware that all of your points are well taken and we understand. The thing is tonight we are dealing with the zoning issue, and if this is successful both here and at the City Council, what happens next is the petitioner will draw up a formal plan as to exactly what it is he plans to do and we presume that he would review this with you in advance. What happens then is that there will be a meeting similar to this relative to the site plan and then it will go to the Council and they will review that process again. The point being whatever we might like to include here on your behalf tonight, we can't. We can't condition zoning as Mr. Shane said earlier. We are very interested in the points you were making, but they are really more appropriate at the site plan approval process. I would suggest you call the Planning office tomorrow to make sure you are informed when the site plan approval process has been scheduled so that you can be sure you participate in that whether or not the petitioner has consulted with you beforehand. 14979 Ms. Heath: We have no problem with Mr. Lewis. If he sells it, we don't know what the new owner would do. We want to be sure as far as ,` driveways, etc. Mr. Engebretson: I think we all agree with you on that point that Mr. Lewis is a reliable business operator but we have to deal with this more abstractly, which we will at site plan approval. I don't want you to leave here tonight feeling that you didn't have the opportunity to express your thoughts but if the remaining thoughts you had are more relative to the site plan approval process, then you will understand that we would really find it more appropriate to deal with them then. Ms. Heath: I understand. Mr. Morrow: Were you notified originally of this public hearing. Ms. Heath: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Then you will also be notified because the Council will go through this again. You will have another opportunity to get your input in at the Council meeting. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: '41111P' AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Blomberg, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-8-5 by Building Design Associates, Inc. requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a gas station/convenience store on property located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Engebretson: This is another item that was tabled at our last meeting and we need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-90-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-8-5 by Building Design Associates, Inc. requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning 14980 Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a gas station/convenience store on property located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in �.. the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: We asked the petitioner to return tonight with a graphic representation of the changes he will make to the new Mobil station. Robert Cassani, Building Design Associates, Inc. (Mr. Cassani presented the revised plans) Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much. You did exactly what you said you would do and I want to tell you I personally appreciate that. It is a significant improvement from where you started. Mrs. Blomberg: I understood that you have a lighter color yellow that we could pick from. Mr. Cassani: We have the color that is called sunburst. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was soap- #6-91-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 96-4-8-5 by Building Design Associates, Inc. requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a gas station/convenience store on property located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet CE-1 dated 4/26/96 prepared by Building Design Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 4/26/96 prepared by Building Design Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new landscaped areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 4/26/96 prepared by Building Design Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 14981 5) That the Color Rendering, as received by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1996, showing the Dryvit Fascia Panels painted gray with a one foot "Sunburst" yellow band painted along the bottom, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the trash dumpster area is to be enclosed on three sides with the same brick used in the construction of the station/convenience store and the wooden enclosure gates, when not in use, shall be maintained and closed at all times; 7) That the columns that support the gas pump island canopy will be replaced or covered with the same brick used in the construction of the station/convenience store; 8) No outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site, however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of Zoning Ordinance#543; 9) That window signage for the station shall be limited to what is permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading (g) "Window Signage"; 10) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans and that all signage for the new station/convenience store shall come back before the Planning Commission for their review and approval. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. #6-92-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14982 Mr. Engebretson: There were a number of reasons this was tabled at our last regular meeting. I will let the people in the audience, as well as those watching v.. this at home, know that we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the details of those items at our study meeting held a week ago. We had asked AMC to provide some specific information. There were a couple of outstanding items relative to the neighboring Technicolor, and also the engineering company on Haggerty Road. So whoever would like to address those items. I see Mr. Jonna and Mr. Sanchez out in the audience. Gary Jonna, Executive Vice President of the Jonna Company: Just a few issues I will mention quickly before I introduce Mr. Sanchez to speak to the theater complex. We have resubmitted a plan with minor changes. The 20 foot maximum height of the lighting was added. The berm along Haggerty Road with the landscape treatment was added to the plan consistent with the presentation at the study session. In addition, there were some minor changes to the Champps Americana Restaurant rotating the restaurant slightly and the addition of the seasonal outdoor dining patio to take full advantage of the water features. Barring that, these are the only site plan revisions that you will find in your package. On the May 25th study session there were several issues raised relative to the theater. You should have a letter dated June 3rd from Mr. Sanchez. At this time I will ask him to speak to those issues. V`"' Nestor Sanchez, Director of Development and Conception for AMC Theaters, Northeast Division: We first presented to this board on the 14th of May with our development partners, the Pentagon Properties, Champps Americana and J. Alexander's. We were very specific about talking to you about the theater complex and the entertainment complex that we propose. We got into detail and we fielded questions. On May 21 we met at your study session and talked about some of the issues which were outstanding. Questions were raised with regard to security problems, which we presented. Questions were raised with regard to other communities that shared our entertainment complexes and I have provided letters from Police Chiefs that talked about the entertainment complex, the AMC concept. I think this speaks to the security issue. At that meeting of May 21 you raised some questions. I have prepared a report dated June 3, which is in front of you. As part of that report we believe we have answered some of the topics of concerns that were brought out at the meeting of the 21st and the meeting of May 14th Part of that included five documents. Within the body of the report is a market profile report dated May 29, which is an independent company, Information Decision Systems, that talks about the demographics of the Seven Mile/Haggerty site, specific to five miles and seven miles. You also have a market profile by the same company for the Wonderland 14983 Theater and again the profile demographically was presented for that area. I have included as part of your report a map of Metro Detroit and it shows our competition and the AMC theaters located within the area. I have included as well a list of the 24 top releases in the typical AMC mix for the exhibition of those top 24 releases throughout the week. What I wanted to do this evening is go briefly through the bodies of the reports and give you an executive summary. We deal primarily with the demographic areas that support Wonderland and Laurel Park. If we can start with Wonderland. It is situated in an extremely strong demographical populous some 301,000 people within the immediate five mile radius. If you blow it out to seven miles, it is in excess of 600,000 people. Wonderland enjoys 1/3 of its market to the northeast quadrant upon a shared basis with Laurel Park and the new Livonia theaters. That 1/3rd almost becomes moot in nature because of the strength of Wonderland alone and we as a company chose to look at Wonderland as an entity of itself because there is a huge demographical area they enjoy. I was honestly thrilled that Wonderland did 400,000 in business last year. We can improve on that substantially. In looking at the Livonia and the Laurel Park market area, we are not looking at Livonia and Laurel Park as two separate theaters. The prototypical theater that we choose to construct today is a 30 screen, 107,000 sq. ft. theater. It sits 6,000 people. Consequently, we looked at Livonia and Laurel Park as a 30 screen commitment to the municipality. In demographically looking at that `"' area, we find 340,000 people in an area that is seven miles in width and we chose to go to the seven mile radius since in fact we are looking at two theaters and 30 screens. This area again enjoys part of the market area with Wonderland to the southwest in this scenario but we find when looking at that market, we have analyzed it in the body of this report, we need 1,200,000 visits to Livonia. We project 1,500,000. We need 600,000 visits to Laurel Park. We currently are doing a 1,000,000 business in Laurel Park alone. In the body of the report I tell you we are going to remodel Laurel Park. We are going to make it modern. We are going to take 2600 seats and we are going to make 2000 plus seats out of it. We are going to change dimensionally the aisle widths and we are going to change the seats. We are not going to make it a riser theater like we propose to do in Livonia. We physically cannot because of the height restrictions. So we are now looking at a marketplace that has 30 screens, approximately 2,000 seats in Laurel Park and 4,000 seats in Livonia. I take you through the analysis of going through 6 1/2 visits in a typical suburban metropolitan scenario and 350,000 folks would feel very comfortable in the scenario. We feel very comfortable in that 1,800,000 scenario. In fact, projected we will do 1,500,000 in Livonia and 800,000 at Laurel Park. I have shared those numbers with you and I have shared them in the spirit that you 14984 ask. We feel confident in the 30 screen pocket. We feel comfortable at Wonderland. I have also talked to you about a couple of things that concern you. You said are you a single purpose building? It is our opinion, in talking to folks that deal with lending institutions, that sloped floor theaters were, in fact, single purpose. The theaters in Livonia will be perfectly level. We build riser diagrams on steel frames heading upward. The dismantling of that system makes this an all purpose house for many different uses. Most lending institutions today will not construe the Livonia theaters to be single purpose. We have also displayed for you what were the top 24 releases last week. You asked me specifically for a typical mix and typical theater placements within the area. We were not able to pull out 24 screen theaters and were not able to tell you what displayed in Dallas or what displayed in Charlotte but I am giving you a mix of the 24 that would simply suggest that we would take the theaters that have that number of screens and show the top two or three hot movies and show them on two screens and then go through the list of the prime movies and display them throughout the theater. I believe those were the questions you asked us at the meeting of the 14th and the 21st. We have authority as a proprietary company over this information and we offer it to as a development partner with Pentagon and with the restaurant parcels in good faith to display to you that we are comfortable with the Livonia development. We are comfortable specifically as it relates to the success of Livonia as well as comfortable with the existence of Laurel Park and Wonderland. We are here to answer questions if you have any. Mr. LaPine: In one paragraph you said "We project a 25% impact on Laurel Park from the Livonia Development". Does that mean you anticipate that you are going to lose 25% of the number of the people that are going to Laurel Park now? Mr. Sanchez: Yes. In fact we think we need to impact it. We think we turn people off. We think we can't handle the population. We are too crowded at peak periods. We also mathematically project losing 25% of the seats as we remodel. Mr. LaPine: You say you are going to lose 25% and then you are going to remodel it and you are going to lose another 25%. Mr. Sanchez: We think we are going to enjoy about 800,000 visits in Laurel Park. Currently we are enjoying 1,000,000 so we think we are going to net out with 800,000 visits. 14985 Mr. LaPine: You are saying the difference between the 800,000 and 1,000,000 will impact out to this location? Mr. Sanchez: Yes. We also think the money we will invest in the remodel will do well for the Laurel Park presentation. Mr. LaPine: At the previous meeting I asked you this question. As it stands now Livonia has 22 screens. We have 103,000 people in the City of Livonia. In my estimation we are well served with 22 theaters for the people who live in Livonia, which is my concern for the people who live in Livonia. I understand what your concern is. At that time you said the draw was a seven mile radius, and it looks like the biggest share of people who are going to be coming to the theaters will be coming from the west and north and about 35% would be coming from Livonia. That is the way I see it. Would you say that is probably close? Mr. Sanchez: We try not to look at specific municipalities only because we deal with terrain that require us to have population counts. Whether 35% I can't tell you. You are probably close but obviously the theater will draw from larger than the Livonia demographical area. In fact I can tell you that about 80% of the traffic will come from that seven mile radius and some will come from outside but primarily we look at that five to seven mile radius where we need to make a living. r.. Mr. LaPine: It is a concern, all through this report you talked mostly about Laurel Park and Wonderland as an entity all to itself. Like any big company, AMC is a big company, you have a bottom line and if you don't make the bottom line, big companies have a tendency to cut costs and close something down. It would be my feeling that if AMC were going to close any theaters, it would be Wonderland based on the fact it is probably the oldest of the theaters, secondly it is the least amount of theaters. You are telling us point blank tonight that you do not intend to close down anything at Wonderland, and are you intending to upgrade the Wonderland Theater as well as the Laurel Park? Mr. Sanchez: Yes. We have no intention of closing Wonderland and we fully intend to upgrade Wonderland. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Sanchez, you say you want to remodel Wonderland and Laurel Park. When do you plan on doing this? Mr. Sanchez: Timetables are difficult because there are other people involved. We have a local operator. We have been in conversations with those people. I have plans. We will work on that diligently. To project 14986 something to you would be less than prudent at this time. We are not going to delay the remodel because of the Livonia structure. In fact, iew we feel from a marketing standpoint that to put Livonia in the community and not remodel the other two, would be a disservice. Mr. Alanskas: Let's put it this way. Let's say this proposal would not go through, would you still remodel Wonderland and Laurel Park? Mr. Sanchez: I can't answer that question sir. Mr. Alanskas: I think it is a very important question. You say you want to give better service to the people that are there now. Mr. Sanchez: It is a completely different experience. We are bringing to Livonians truly the theater of the 21st Century. There isn't one around here. We are talking about an auditorium that has no equal and we are saying the other theaters that we operate, we need to scale up to meet that challenge. If you choose not to put Livonia in place, that is a question that I cannot answer. Mr. Alanskas: When this proposal first came before us I really had two large concerns. One was traffic, and with the traffic studies we now have and basically with the traffic you are going to have in the evening, as far as I am concerned you kind of alleviate that problem. Number two, my next biggest concern was what would happen at Wonderland and also the Livonia Mall. Like you say you want to remodel Laurel Park and you are going to take out 600 seats. Mr. Sanchez: That is an estimate. Mr. Alanskas: How many seats are you going to take out at Wonderland? Mr. Sanchez: I haven't looked at Wonderland yet. We talked about Laurel Park because of its proximity to Livonia. Specifically speaking when you are talking about taking a 39 wide aisle and making it 46, when you are talking about taking a 24 inch bucket and making it 30, when you take a look at that geometry you lose about 20% to 25%. Mr. Alanskas: So you are looking at upgrading both malls and giving the people better seating, better sound and better picture? Mr. Sanchez: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: I had some reservations in regards to the two malls. With all of the information you have given us, number one I appreciate it. I think you 14987 really answered for this Commission a lot of the questions that had big question marks. I, as one, say do we need 20 screens in Livonia but for r.�. the size you want to come in there and the traffic, I am thinking more and more it is not a bad mix for the City of Livonia. We are dealing with a new age of theaters and I know people now, the wife works, the husband works, they get home and they are too tired to cook dinner, and they go out and have dinner and they may go to a movie. I know myself at times I have gone to Laurel Park to see a movie and it has been sold out. I think you have had the loss there simply because you didn't have enough seats for certain movies. I can see your thinking why you need more screens and I, as one Commissioner, I am looking at it in a very favorable position. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on a couple of things with Mr. Jonna. Mr. Jonna, I am curious as to whether or not you or your representative had an opportunity to deal with Mr. Carmichael or his representative to address the issues that were raised at the last meeting. Mr. Jonna: We have had a lot of dialogue. Two meetings were held between the 14th and today with staff, members of the Engineering Department and Planning Department. Yes we have had opportunities to discuss his concerns in great depth. Mr. Engebretson: Can you tell us the outcome of those discussions? Mr. Jonna: There hasn't been a final resolution although I guess in my view there has been a material meeting of the minds on the issues in terms of closure. My perception of closure and his may be different but I think we have discussed all the relevant issues. We have tried to be as reasonable and flexible and as accommodating as possible. I am sure he will speak to that as well but from my vantage point we made every effort to cooperate and coordinate. I will also add, you touched on it for a moment there, we did meet with CBS Technicolor. I had a chance to visit with them prior to the last study session and met with Patrick Goss and their Director of Human Resources. There were about half a dozen people at the meeting. So we had about an hour and a half to review the issues, and most of them are landscaping and security related. There were some engineering issues. I am very pleased to report that we gave satisfactory responses to their concerns that they had put on the record of the first public hearing. I don't know if a representative is here this evening. They may be. If not, I will say that some of their major issues were landscaping related, security, and signage, which we told them we are not before the Planning Commission at this point in time, but would be, and at that time we would meet with them to coordinate their concerns in detail. The last 14988 comment is obviously we have all our boards here, our consultants are available. There is no need to go through another exhausting `.. presentation but certainly we have all the information you may need if you so desire. Mr. Engebretson: There is no purpose served by re-running the public hearing. We have spent probably four hours on it up to this point but there was one issue that was raised previously that hasn't been discussed in this forum that I can recall, other than passing comments, that being the reports from the various Police Chiefs that were supplied relative to the criminal activity, the police runs, in communities where similar size operations have been built, and I found those reports to be very reassuring that the crime impact is for all intents and purposes non-existent. There was one theater complex in Chicago where there were a great many police runs but there were several dozen reported gangs in one high school in close proximity to that theater and one could expect that they would bring their activity into every phase of life. Other than that report the Police Chiefs gave very positive information and the information has been supplied by AMC relative to the security plans that they have for all of their complexes, including Livonia, would be to provide private security in conjunction with the local police force and giving the local Police Chief some significant say as to whether or not the security was deemed adequate by him and giving him the right to cause that security to be augmented. I wanted to make that comment, not for your benefit, but I am wanting to share that information to those in the audience both here and at home because that issue was raised and we received very substantial information and we thank you for that. Mr. LaPine: At the last meeting we requested some information from Schostak from Wonderland and Laurel Park plus Livonia Mall if they had any objections . Did we ever receive anything from any of those people? *Mr. Nagy entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Engebretson: To the best of my knowledge we have not. Mr. Sanchez was reluctant to comment relative to non-AMC operations. Mr. Nagy, have we initiated any dialogue with either the operator of the Livonia Mall Theater operation or the Livonia Mall owners? Mr. Nagy: There have been no comments. They have not responded to the notice that was given and we did not follow up here recently so we have nothing to report. Mr. Engebretson: Would you have given them notice? 14989 Mr, Nagy: We know that the Livonia Mall management is aware of it but the theater people have not communicated with us. Mr. Engebretson: Presumably the mall management would have done that. Mr. LaPine: The other thing I had asked for was if we could get some idea of the difference in tax dollars the City would generate, this operation compared to 172,000 sq. ft. of retail. Did we get that information? Mr. Engebretson: I don't know. I recall you asking for that Mr. LaPine and I told you I had not checked with our Assessor. Mr. Nagy, what would your sense be on that? Is there a different tax rate based on usage or manufacturing versus commercial, similar size buildings. Mr. Nagy: I suppose there would be. I think in terms of the building itself, the commercial building would be valued higher than a manufacturing building because it is built with higher standards. I think what might separate the two, however, would be the manufacturing would pay higher in terms of their personal property, their expensive machinery. I don't think you really can compare the two equally. I think the real property for commercial itself, it is significantly higher than manufacturing. There are more important locational characteristics with good commercial property than with industrial property. I think the building itself is built to higher standards in commercial real estate. Now Mr. LaPine: If this was developed as original planned for retail, that compared to the theater, two restaurants and the possibility of a third restaurant and 40,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. of retail, would we have gotten more tax dollars with the 172,000 sq. ft. or this proposal? Mr. Nagy: I would need more time on that. Mr. Morrow: As I recall one of the major concerns was traffic, and I think we saw a detailed report at the study session but I am not sure we made it part of this meeting as far as a recap. I don't want to know all the details because it would take some time but I think we should address it in some form as it relates to Wayne County, perhaps the City's projection. Mr. Engebretson: As we call them to the podium, be aware that the traffic report has been made a part of the public record that will follow this case on to the City Council. The Traffic Consultant, as I recall, did make comments at the study meeting. It may be helpful if we can get a recap. Mr. Jonna, Mr. LaPine has asked whether or not the traffic study that was done for the Home Depot development in 1993, whether or not that specific data 14990 was taken into consideration in the updated traffic study that you provided us. Mr. Jonna: Mr. Lafferty can answer that. I will also pass out a new geometric plan I have prepared for you. What we have passed out to the Planning Commission, there was a lot of confusion as to what is the existing number of lanes, and how many lanes in certain junctions of the study. So what we have done is we have prepared a single board that shows the existing road and then Phase I, II and III improvements. (Mike Lafferty explained the plan and went through Phase I, II and III. Mr. Lafferty: Phase I will basically extend the northbound lane and the center lane for left turns. Phase II basically extends the two southbound lanes a little further north. Phase III extends the five lane pavement all the way to Windridge Subdivision. Phase I would be for the cinema and two restaurants. Phase II is the retail center and future retail. Phase III, the final stage, is related to the justification in the eyes of Wayne County for additional pavement to be added. Mr. Engebretson: Wayne county will make the determination Mr. Jonna but you will pay the bill? Mr. Jonna: Correct. Mr. Lafferty: You asked whether the Home Depot traffic study was factored into our study. It was. Mr. Engebretson: Without re-running the whole public hearing, relative to traffic, could you just summarize again your impression of what the impact of these improvements will be on the traffic conditions in the area assuming this project is developed in its entirety. Mr. Lafferty: We looked at the traffic study. You need to know the right turn is going to be added on Seven Mile. There is going to be a significant right turn lane and a major access to Seven Mile. There is a table in the report that we went through at the study session, background conditions and all that stuff, but basically today the intersection at Seven Mile and Haggerty operates at something called Level Service D, which in traffic engineering circles means an acceptable level of service. The future level of service, with the improvements and the traffic that will be there during the evening peak hours from this development, it will still operate at Level Service D. So the improvements, for the most part, mitigate the traffic impact from the development. At Seven Mile and Haggerty it will continue to operate 14991 basically the same way it does as far as vehicular delay once the development is complete and all the improvements are in, at the same `.. level of service it does today. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Carmichael or his representative to tell us how he perceives the outcome of your dialogue. Barry Steinway: I am here representing Mr. Carmichael whose property is located at 19450 Haggerty. Last Tuesday when we were here we pointed out some of the issues and concerns we had with that property and the Chairman asked us to meet and coordinate with the Jonna people to attempt to resolve the issues. We proceeded the next day to meet with the City Planner, Assistant Planner, City Engineer, the parties involved, our Engineer, Larry Currin of JCK & Associates. We identified four issues. Sanitary sewers needed to be coordinated. Storm sewers coordination, drain differentials needed to be addressed as well as concerns for access hazards to and from Haggerty Road. We then retained Stanley Cool, a Traffic Consultant, who had studied the Haggerty corridor and particularly the Jonna site. On Monday, yesterday, we delivered a plan to the Jonna engineer, which was a plan hopefully to resolve the access and grade issues in order to avoid the construction of a retaining wall around our site. Today we met with the City Planner, the Assistant Planner, the City Engineer, the parties and our engineer and discussed the issues. We tried to resolve these issues. We have not been able to come to a resolution at this point. Mr. Jonna could not commit to a resolution without concurrence from all parties involved. What we would like to do is have Mr. Stan Cool, the Traffic Consultant that is here with us tonight,just discuss briefly what our concerns and problems are in relation to the site and then I would like to ask Mr. Curran, the Engineer, to address the grade and public utility concerns we have so that you will be fully aware of where we are coming from. I would like to point out our zoning change request, which was approved by the Planning Commission, has been tabled by the Committee of the Whole asking that we coordinate our site with the Jonna site. Stan Cool: The Traffic Impact Study that was done for the Jonna site, the AMC Theater site, covers most everything that typically would be covered and provides some important information. There is one area that report is silent on and that is the traffic that is leaving the southerly driveway of the Home Depot making left turns. Today during peak times the left turn traffic does what a lot of people do when they have center left turn lanes, they turn left out into the center turn lane and then they maneuver into the northbound traffic lane as they have a gap to do so. Mr. Carmichael has exhibits there that he is showing that at the Home 14992 Depot drive people turn left out of that into the center turn lane and that in a sense is blocking traffic that is trying to leave Mr. Carmichael's driveway, and because they are paying attention through *4411/ their rear mirrors to see the traffic coming so they can move over, I would say during the afternoon peak we have an unsafe situation for traffic exiting from the current driveway on Mr. Carmichael's property. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Mr. Jonna's consultant indicates that there will be backlogging taking place at westbound Seven Mile, and with the right turn lane that backlogging is forecast to be somewhat in excess of 400 feet, but in my estimation we are going to have a fair number of people who will seek an alternate route and will enter the Seven Mile driveway of the development and then come out to Haggerty and make right turns and the first driveway that does that is approximately 90 feet south of Mr. Carmichael's driveway. So people will have problems making left turns out and they will also find the gap in northbound traffic taken by traffic from the driveway some 90 feet away. In a sense what is being proposed is going to block Mr. Carmichael's drive and the people using it during the peak periods. Now what do we do? We have a nice development with three driveways up on Haggerty and another driveway at Seven Mile Road that is surrounding his property and it occurs to me if it is at all feasible that he should have an access through the Jonna Pentagon development. Mr. Currin is going to be talking about that so I don't need to except that in my estimation if such an access is provided, then Nor that will take care of the problem that I foresee from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Engebretson: Could you just mention briefly how many cars would be leaving the Carmichael property during that peak period that you spoke to? Mr. Cool: This is a relatively small situation today. However, if it does indeed get rezoned, then there could be more traffic that could be desiring to exit from the property, and I can't give you a good answer to that. Mr. Engebretson: That was not the question. You made the premise that this proposal was going to interfere with cars exiting Mr. Carmichael's business during peak hours. My question is how many cars are going to be leaving the property during that peak period, nothing having to do with the future but right now. Mr. Carmichael: We have a good half a dozen to a dozen. If we were to develop the site further, we could have as many as 36 cars exiting. Mr. Engebretson: We are dealing with today. That is what Mr. Cool was dealing with. That is what we are trying to deal with. 14993 Mr. Carmichael: We have 14 parking stalls now. Generally I would say 12. 'o`` Larry Currin, Vice President of JCK& Associates, and Consulting Engineer on this job. The four issues that were mentioned that we tried to work out with Jonna, I am not saying we haven't I am just saying we want to put it on the table. 1) The sanitary sewer, we were confident in working with the City Engineer that is going to get worked out based on the requirements of the City. Because this is an isolated parcel they are going to be required to bring up the sanitary sewer. 2) The storm sewer, as far as verbiage, we have agreed that they will allow us to tap into their storm sewer system. We haven't worked out the details on that. The two biggest issues were access and grading. The plan looks pretty in color. It looks like a nice green park there. Anyone that knows this property, the existing building there is going to be setting six feet above their northwest property line, seven and a half feet above their parking lot at the northeast corner of our property and 16 feet above their parking lot at the southeast corner. That is where we have a problem. Without coordinating this, if they are allowed to develop without working with us, in order for us to develop our property in the future, we are going to be a plateau sitting out in a sea below. We will be forced to expand our parking lot. We will end up with a retaining wall that could be in excess of 12 feet, maybe 10 to 12 feet in the southeast corner. That is what we are trying to avoid. Not to say they — haven't been working with us but before they get a plan approved we are hoping to have an agreement because yes we are going to work with you grade wise, and try to get that access because if, as mentioned, we are just afraid in the future if we do plan on developing it whether it stays as office and you expand the office or it is commercial and we have maybe 35 to 40 parking spots, cars trying to turn left out of there, it is going to be hard. We just want that option. I am not saying we are going to use it now. We may find out the plan works but we just want that option and knowing he has that option ahead of time before the plan is approved. We are not doubting their word but at this point that is all we have their word that yes we are going to allow you to do things. As we mentioned we have had six months since we have been tabled. They had approximately two weeks. We want everything to be coordinated and for us to be able to work with them to the benefit of both parties. Mr. Engebretson: If I may address your final comment there sir. It is not uncommon that the City Council, who has the final authority to determine these matters, for them to hold a particular issue, whether it is zoning or site plan, in that Committee of the Whole or to just withhold the second reading, in the case of a zoning matter, until the entire package is 14994 available to them, and while I don't know what the City Council's position is here, it would appear to me that very likely that they are in fact waiting for these issues to come together so they can work with the parties to resolve any outstanding issues that remain by the time it gets there. It has to really occur at that level because again we pass it on and they have chosen to handle it in the manner they have. I wouldn't be particularly alarmed by that. I would almost find that to be a very reasonable thing for them to do so they can deal with both parties at the same time. It is something that appears to make a lot of sense. We can't logically coordinate our activities with what they are doing because of the very fact we are separate bodies and we are recommending and they make the decisions. That is how it works. Mr. Jonna gave the impression he believes there is a meeting of the minds, perhaps not necessarily reduced to a written agreement. If you have resolved the storm water and sanitary sewer issues and access is something that usually with an engineering professional can be worked out, I suspect they are going to be anxious to work that out with you. Thank you very much for sharing your comments with us. Mr. Steinway: We stand ready and willing to attempt to coordinate all of these resolutions with the Jonna group. We are not satisfied currently that we have come to a resolution. A resolution takes two parties agreeing to all the terms and we have not come to that point. We have worked diligently. We have only had to do it in one week so we have worked on it. We are ready to proceed ahead but it has not been concluded at this point. Mr. Engebretson: It is underway. Mr. Steinway: Both sides have met twice now and we are hopeful that we can work something out. Mr. Engebretson: Are there further meetings? Mr. Steinway: While we are hopeful we can come to a conclusion, we want to present to this Planning Commission that we don't have anything yet that satisfies us that we are coordinated. Mr. Engebretson: We understand and we thank you very much for your input sir. Mr. Jonna, I think it is appropriate that you just address the fact that you too are anxious to continue the dialogue. Mr. Jonna: What I would like to do is have our attorney address that. 14995 Robert Carson: I am an attorney representing the developers. I would like to assure the members of this Commission we too are interested in being cooperative and understand the merit of attempting to work things out. I think at our meeting, without putting anyone from the City's administration on the spot, that we have been real forthcoming with respect to this and will continue to do so. There are benefits and burdens and costs in anything that goes forward in working any site as you are well aware of. We are going to address all those issues. We are available to continue that. I think real progress has been made and I am confident that a good conclusion can come of it. I don't mean to belabor the point. I think that is the general consensus. Mr. Jonna: There was some talk about the traffic issues and the Traffic Engineer could comment further but I don't know if it is necessary. I think everyone is hopeful that the inner connection to the site is the most appropriate solution. That is what we are considering. I think by reputation everyone knows we will put forth a good faith effort to resolve it. Mr. Engebretson: That would sure make a lot of sense. Mr. Carmichael: I think it would be very productive if we were allowed to have a little more time to bring the two sides from a technical point of view together and I am suggesting that you might table this to the next '"" meeting. Mr. Engebretson: As you know, the next step in this process once it leaves here, whether it is voted up or down, it moves to the City Council and they then will hear it on a study meeting. I don't know how backed up they are but I presume that it would be several weeks before it would appear on their agenda hopefully giving you time to work all these issues out. Mr. Carmichael: We are not coordinated at this moment. We had a very short time to do that. Mr. Engebretson: I understand that and we are not rushing you. What I am saying to you is the process by definition has a several week gap when it leaves here. If it leaves here tonight, voted up or down, there is at least a two week gap, maybe more, before you will be back on this property again in this environment. You wanted it tabled. You are not so much interested in a time line. You are more interested in a tabling resolution. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Carmichael: The City in general has held our rezoning for a good five months and I understand why. This is a major project, which is impacting me 14996 seriously. They have had months to prepare and we have had days to prepare. It is a miracle I have this crew on board. I mean I have a ,olow Traffic Engineer, I have a Civil Engineer and this is within days, this is a miracle. I don't think there has been enough time to resolve the issues. I have been asked to stop five months to coordinate and now it is being passed by and now you say well you have had a couple of days. I think it is appropriate that we finally come to closure on the coordination. Mr. Morrow: From my own standpoint, I think I concur with your analysis Mr. Chairman that the City Council is probably anticipating resolving this very issue at their level as opposed to going in with a resolution at this level. Maybe that is why they held it up to make sure the two sites co- existed. Is that your understanding Mr. Chairman? Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir. Mr. Morrow: I kind of feel that the resolution will come at that body. I am not sure what another week will do at this body because we are just a recommending body. Mr. Engebretson: I think the resolution occurs between the parties but the City Council has control. N""' Mr. LaPine: Mr. Cool, the report that we got on the Home Depot, Windridge Subdivision, was that done by your firm? Mr. Cool: Yes in 1993. Mr. LaPine: I try to look at both reports. You guys are the experts and I can't understand it. Their report is in percentages, yours is in units. To be honest with you I was so confused I am going to have to take somebody's word for it here because it was too confusing for me but I wanted to make sure. Have you seen the other report? Mr. Cool: I have. Mr. LaPine: Do you concur in that the conclusions they come to is comparable to what you came to in your report? Mr. Cool: They have more information now than we had back in 1993 but in reviewing the report I find no fault with what they have done, the process they have gone through, the forecasting of the traffic and the capacity analysis of that various theaters and we would come up with the same type of information if we were assigned that task today. 14997 Mr. LaPine: In some instances I see where you were pretty close together but I �..• realize there is a three year difference in time here. You have looked at it and you are comfortable with the conclusions that they came to comparable to the conclusions you came to in your report? Mr. Cool: With the exception of the things I mentioned earlier with regards to the cut-through traffic. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. I tried to study this and it is way over my head. Mr. Engebretson: Have we now given all the principals in this matter an opportunity to clarify any of the outstanding issues that they may have? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Sanchez, if this project goes through and it is completed, and then you remodeled Laurel Park and that is completed, is it safe to say with the new sound and large screen that the ticket prices for Livonia residents will be the same as they are now? Mr. Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: I mentioned at the beginning of this section of the agenda because of the fact we are continuing on previously held public hearings and extensive dialogue has preceded this meeting, the purpose for tonight's meeting is to deal with resolution of the outstanding issue. I think we have done that. I know there are people in the audience that are interested in this issue. As you heard me say earlier, the rules provide that audience participation is permitted with the consent of 100% of the members of the Commission. We went through that earlier tonight with the lady that lives across the street from the Winter Garden Bar. Is there anyone in the audience that has new information to bring tonight? New information! I see there are a couple of people indicating they have new information. Does anyone object to giving the people the opportunity to speak? There was no objection. Ray Tent, 18051 Deering: I do have some new information. I would like to make one brief comment first. I am kind of disappointed in what is going to take place today and that is basically the fact that I have always fought, and the thing I am concerned about is you have been given some information here today relative to this proposal. Where I come from the Planning Commission should really put the things together and then send them to the Council. They don't rely on the Council making the final decision. These neighbors really have a point. They have some 14998 serious concerns. I see nothing wrong in tabling this and putting it on the table for two weeks, three if necessary, to let the two parties get 'Nowtogether. There is no reason to hurry this through. I think in all fairness to us in the City and maybe the taxpayer, I am involved and I am sure you are involved, I think they should have their day in court, and I think this thing should be tabled. To run through this major project, it is a big one, it can have a big effect on the City and to rush it through and say Council you take care of it. Mr. Nagy and Mr. Shane, they are planners. You are a Planning Commission here. You can put these pieces together and to shun your responsibility by saying okay we are going to handle it tonight and send it on to the Council. I object to that. The other thing now is those that have served with us, Mr. Sanchez gave a study about the need for a theater and the market it will draw on. The same petitioner was before us for the Home Quarters at Middlebelt and Schoolcraft and they brought in complete studies to show how the big home maintenance buildings were necessary. They were only penetrating 45% of the market. They said they would draw from Detroit, from Farmington, from all over, and guess what, it didn't materialize and what happened Handy Andy has gone bankrupt, the Home Depot up on Inkster Road, that has gone out, Church's Lumber and so many things are going by. So when they give you these studies and say we are going to draw from different areas, that necessarily isn't so. Just like Mr. LaPine, he was concerned where the draw would be coming from. I would like to get a commitment. Mr. Alanskas said you are going to upgrade the theaters, they said maybe sometime. Tell us six months or a year. We are never going to get them updated. In conclusion, Mr. LaPine he handled this thing tremendously last time, and I wonder if you followed up on it. You were talking about the architecture. You were talking about the structure of the one in Southfield. You were talking about the better building material they used. I think the architecture of this should be a concern. If they are going to go ahead and do this project, then I think we should look at the building and architecture and make that a part of the package but the fact is don't handle it real quickly today and shove it on to the Council and say okay guys it is up to you. You will get the blame for it. Stand up and be counted. Have some guts. We did it before. We can do it again. If we just let all the stuff slide through, we are not doing our job. Maybe that is why you are there and I am here because I speak up. Harold Dunn, 18745 Fairway: I don't have any new facts or figures for you people but I do have a few comments. I thought one of the reasons for this meeting was to allow residents a few minutes to make comments and my comments are to urge this Commission not to approve the project as presented. I would like to quickly cover six points. First of all, I am 14999 not opposed to the movie complex. My wife and I are avid movie goers. I am concerned and opposed to the project because of its size `.. and of its potential adverse affect on other movie theaters. The previous speaker touched on one of the problems and very well. Right now we have about 22 theaters as far as I can figure out, Laurel Park, Wonderland, I believe the Terrace Theater is still operating, Livonia Mall. If the Mai Kai Theater could not stay in business when we had about 22 or 24 theaters in Livonia, I cannot believe that the present 22 will stay in business with this additional 20. It is common sense, basic Econ 101 in college. It tells me something is going to give and if 20 additional theaters are placed in Livonia, I am willing to bet Livonia Mall and the Terrace and possibly Wonderland, notwithstanding the comments from AMC. Let me give an example. When a big company comes into a City, the smaller companies get hurt. The examples of Home Depot and HQ are two. You have now a small business ghetto at the corner of Eight Mile and Merriman where Cashway used to be and Middlebelt and Schoolcra$ where Handy Andy was. What is the price of us developing the little bit of remaining land in Livonia at the expense of another area of Livonia. I think this Commission should give that some careful thought before you approve it. There is no guarantee, and AMC cannot guarantee for life they will keep Laurel Park and Wonderland open, and I don't expect them to but if AMC is so convinced that they can maintain approximately 36 theaters in this small area, then the City of Livonia ought to have a contract with AMC and the developers to guarantee at least for the next 15 years that all the theaters in Laurel Park and Wonderland stay open. That, in my opinion, here I speak as a lawyer, I believe is legal to do so long as it is in return for a waiver to build the theaters. AMC agrees to pay a financial penalty if it closes any one or more of its theaters. This is not like GM in Ypsilanti where it got out of Ypsilanti because there was no contract. I would suggest that one of the reasons this Commission should postpone any judgment is to seek legal counsel from the City attorney as to whether that is, as I read it or whether the City Attorney reads it, a viable possibility. When you talk about traffic, I don't know about A, B or C. I hear that. That confuses me. All I know is one lane, two lanes, number of cars that go by in an hour, number of vehicles, etc. I don't understand that as a layman. I don't understand that language, and when someone talks to me about this is B plan or C plan, it is gobbly goop to me. What I want to hear, what I hope everybody on this Commission wants to hear are simple figures, 5 cars, 3 cars, 1000 cars. My own rough estimate, and it is a rough estimate, is that on a Friday or Saturday night if we have a theater complex with about 4000 seats, my estimate is between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on the peak days of Friday and Saturday, there will be about 2,000 vehicles entering, give or take a couple of hundred. There is a 15000 mixture of the shows. You are talking about 4,000 vehicles. Massive traffic problems. I have not heard anything that satisfied the traffic 44.. problems on Haggerty Road. To talk about Plan A, Phase I, II, III tells me we are talking about years down the road before there is a good traffic pattern on Haggerty Road. I suggested last time that this Commission have a separate traffic study. I am going to say it again. The traffic studies everyone is presenting only talk about Haggerty Road. I have not heard about any traffic study on Six Mile, Seven Mile and Newburgh Road because all of those roads will lead into and feed into that complex. I think this Commission needs that kind of information before a final decision is made. I think it is very, very important. Last point, it is a very important point. I have heard comments in City X, in State Y the AMC complex experience has been great. No crime, very little crime. It may be true, and I don't expect major crime. I just don't but my lifetime experience tells me when you build a major complex of any kind, crime in some categories go up. A better criteria for this Commission to use is not Chicago, not Dallas, not Louisiana but the general broad southeast Michigan. That would be a better pattern to use. I think this Commission needs those figures. I think this Commission also needs to know whether a complex of that size, if it is built, will demand an increase in police and fire protection. Will we need to finance and tax ourselves for more police officers. I don't know but so far I have not heard anyone ask that question. I don't know if the Commission has those figures but my guess is that these figures are available. We should have those estimates before this Commission votes to approve this type of complex. I would suggest to this Commission that they ask the developer and AMC to come back with a little different plan. How about a ten theater complex along with everything else that may satisfy the needs of all of us in Livonia better than a 20 theater complex. There are some major problems inherent in a 4,000 seat, 20 theater complex. They may be the major conglomerate of the wave of the future. That is very possible and it is true in some areas but that doesn't mean we in Livona ought to buy what somebody says is the wave of the future. The wave of the future is not necessarily what is best for the average, middle-class person living in the City of Livonia. AMC has the right to make money. They are in business to make money. I hope they make plenty of money but it ought not to be at our expense and if they can make money at 10, 12, 14 theaters, let's do that, and this Commission has the leverage by not approving the waiver. I ask this Commission not to approve the waiver at this time, to get the other information that I see as a resident that I think is important. Ask AMC to come back with an altered plan that may be better suited for the other businesses, the smaller businesses that are affected, and seriously affected as I understand it, and don't forget there are two restaurants going in, and I have no problem with two 15001 more restaurants. Again, I think we are building a complex that is going to injure and hurt Livonia residents and nearby residents, and I am asking this Commission to not approve it. Refer it back for more study and more thought. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dunn, I can't really respond to each of your points but I would say you are at somewhat of a disadvantage because you weren't at the original meeting, which is regrettable, but I do think that it may be of interest to you if you would stop by the Planning office. They would be happy to give you a copy of the traffic reports so you could better understand that impact, and the Police Department, if you are interested, their commentary on this proposal. They didn't really find any particular concern about this use. If you would be interested in trying to catch up on some of those details that took place at the original public hearing process, we will make sure that is made available to you in whatever form you would like to have it. Brad Strader: I am with McKenna& Associates, Planning Consultant for Northville Township. I was requested by Northville Township to be present tonight on behalf of Karen Woodside, the Chairperson of the Planning Commission, who is at a Planning Commission meeting in Northville tonight, and I appreciate the opportunity you have given us to make a presentation. We also appreciate the time the developer has given in responding to some of the concerns raised by Northville. Since the last ',Now time that we have had a person attend your meeting, we have had a meeting of myself, the Township Traffic Engineer and Consultant, Mr. Shane, and Greg Harrison from the Wayne County Department of Public Services talking about the traffic impact study and improvements to Haggerty Road, and on behalf of the Township, we believe the improvements proposed for Haggerty Road will mitigate the traffic impacts of this project. I guess there will be some relief in that the traffic impact from this project will be off peak with all the other commercial developments going on both sides of Haggerty Road. I think that is something to consider, and we do appreciate the time that you have given us. We do still have a couple of minor issues that may already be addressed in the staff reports but we did receive a conceptual landscape plan. One thing the conceptual landscape plan showed was a 3 foot high hedge, which will protect residents and motorists along Haggerty Road from the views of vehicles and headlights but I am not sure if the 3 foot height will be achieved at time of planting or that is the mature height, and we would request if you take any action to approve this, that the 3 foot height be provided at planting. Also, the greenbelt along Haggerty Road is now 16 feet, which I think is quite an improvement from what we saw before, and it shows primarily deciduous trees but it does not identify specifically the 15002 species or the spacing. The request on behalf of Northville Township is that at least some of the species be evergreens and that the specific species and size be shown before Commission takes any final action, and Northville would again request a chance to review that plan if submitted. With that, again, we thank you for your time and appreciate you letting us speak again tonight past the public hearing. Mr. Engebretson: What have you considered on your side of Haggerty Road to mitigate any visual problems that might arise from this development with respect to those residents? Mr. Strader: When the Woodridge project was approved, there was a lot of concern about the view of the commercial across the street so the units were turned inward so the rear yards would face on Haggerty Road. A 35 foot additional greenbelt was provided along Haggerty Road to be planted to provide some insulation to the rear of those homes to give them some privacy facing Haggerty, and an additional greenbelt was provided from Home Depot in terms of landscaping an area, so everything on the Northville Township plan was pushed back further on Haggerty Road. Mr. Engebretson: What opportunities do you have to enhance the plantings on your side? Mr. Strader: I guess the developer could provide some additional plantings. The — Township does not have, at this time, any technique or ability to require additional planting on our side of the road. Everything has been approved. Mr. Engebretson: Would the Township be interested in doing that just to enhance the quality of life for their residents there? Mr. Strader: It is probably something to be considered. The Township has a Streetscape Program that could be initiated if the project goes in on the east side. We could work with the developer to do something. Mr. Engebretson: Did you bring along all the reports tonight that Ms. Woodside said got stuck in your firm several weeks ago? Mr. Strader: The Township staff has informed me and Ms. Woodside all those traffic reports had been picked up by Mr. Shane. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman I have one question. The property south of Meijers, how many acres is that? Mr. Strader: Approximately 32 acres. 15003 Mr. LaPine: I assume that is zoned commercial. Mr. Strader: It is zoned OS II, large offices, but it is currently under negotiations as part of a Consent Agreement to allow a commercial zoning on the eastern half of the project and a residential development on the western half of the project similar to the Home Depot type project accommodating commercial and residential. Mr. LaPine: It is still in Court at this point? Mr. Strader: It is in final negotiations for a Consent Agreement. Mr. LaPine: Do you know if it is going to be an office building or retail sales? Mr. Strader: Retail sales. Mr. LaPine: Do you know how many stores will be in the retail sales? Mr. Strader: Yes I do but I checked with the Township Attorney to see how much information I can disclose, and he said at this point I can't disclose any of those types of details publicly. I can tell you in terms of traffic, a traffic impact study was provided, and the plan at this point there would be a signal provided approximately at the center of that parcel. 'tow It may involve relocating the Meijer signal southward to that mid-point. Sandra Crowe, 36883 Curtis: My only statement is that everyone I have talked to in Livonia nobody has said they want this theater complex, not one person, and you as our public servant is supposed to do as we ask. My question is for whom are you allowing this complex to be entered into Livonia because we don't want it. I am glad the Jonna group, they say they want to work with us, so I would like to say go to Novi. Mr. LaPine: I have lost all my vision of what this building is going to look like. I would appreciate it if Mr. Jonna would give me a quick run down of what the building would look like, the materials, etc. We have talked so much about the traffic, etc. I have lost what it is going to look like. I am only interested in the theaters. (Mr. Jonna presented the plans.) Mr. LaPine: Will the two retail stores be constructed out of the same materials as the theaters? 15004 Mr. Jonna: Not necessarily. I think there will be five individual buildings, each with their own personality, each with their own character. I think what is wonderful about this project, it is not a monotone or monochromatic °i development. Mr. Piercecchi: I have a few comments. We have studied the traffic connected with the petition because that is our job. Likewise we have studied the site plan, the elevation, the landscape plan, the public safety connected with the petition because that also is our job. Because we are a recommending body all of this will go forward to our City Council for their information. It is time to move this petition forward. However, this is not our prime responsibility here tonight. We must first determine if this waiver to a more intensive use is appropriate for the surrounding area, and for that matter is it a use that is lacking in Livonia as a whole. I would like to share some of the notes that I have put together. Mr. Chairman, some of these may be a repeat so please bear with me. To my satisfaction we have not answered the ultimate question. In my opinion, is this facility in the best interest of Livonia with concerns for our neighbor Northville Township? Will it enhance or take away our image? Is it a plus or a minus? What about our composition nationally regarding safety and drivability? Is this facility being built for Livonians or the surrounding communities? Will it have a deleterious effect on the value of property west of Haggerty Road? How about the number of unsupervised young adults this complex will draw? There is too a definite limit on good movies. With this complex, what would the long-term viability of our current 22 screens be? There are two other facilities now owned by AMC. Regarding traffic, no matter what type of activity is placed in this area, it will have a negative impact on traffic. There is little doubt we could use five lanes now without other additions moving on stream. However, I do feel that office or light manufacturing, etc. in the C-2 zoning would create less congestion than a 4,000 seat theater. In reference to an enhancement to our City, this entertainment center is designed to attract people from a five to seven mile radius. It is not being built for Livonians. As mentioned before, we have currently 22 screens operating here. Quite enough I believe. The 20 proposed screens are earmarked for our suburbs with the potential for attracting good as well as the bad elements to our safety- conscious community. As far as crime impact Mr. Chairman, if you read the crime impact for Dallas and San Diego, of course they have no effect. Those are huge cities. All the crime is internal. You merely shift it around. The question of effect on home values across on Haggerty is, in my opinion, simple to answer. Home values will decrease. This facility is not compatible with residences. If it was suggested that a complex such as this would be placed across from a $300,000 Livonia subdivision, would this waiver reach this stage? Why 15005 burden our neighbors with it. Unsupervised young people which could number in the hundreds could present a problem. This is a big possibility or the theater would not have prepared such an elaborate security program. Fellow Commissioners there are currently four sites where movies are shown in Livonia, Laurel Park, Wonderland, Terrace and Sears mall. The Mai Kai was an early fatality. If there was a need, and someone else brought this up, for additional screening why was not the Mai Kai reactivated. Will others go via the Mai Kai giving us another empty box? After all, even if this proposed 20 screen is designed for our suburbs, taking a small percentage away from Sears mall, for example, would not fare well, and Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the future of Sears mall. Lastly Mr. Chairman, what if this facility fails? The market for a 20 screen facility I would guess is very limited. I can appreciate the developers wanting to locate in Livonia. We are a great community with an outstanding record and promise. We are doing fine because of our City government, a great City Council and Mayor, a good Planning Department, an even great department I would say, and we do have citizen involvement. There is plenty of land elsewhere. This is a big city project like the ones in Dallas and San Diego, I too, like the young woman that came up that mentioned she had not received any positive impact on this facility going in Livonia, I have not received one saying"do it". Everyone, and I would say at least two dozen or more, have commented to me, even a City Councilman and a person high in the administration has said "It `` does not belong". Mr. Chairman, if you insist on this being up or down and not accepting a tabling motion, I would offer a motion to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2- 14 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.37 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to required parking space sizes; 15006 3) That the proposed use will overburden the area with additional vehicular traffic; 4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses in the area; and 5) That the proposed use will adversely impact other similar uses within the City of Livonia and surrounding areas. Mr. McCann: I will make an alternative resolution to table at this time for one week only because I have some concerns left with the neighbors that have come up tonight regarding the adjacent property. I think it is the type of thing that some of these issues can be worked out, maybe a smaller amount of theaters possibly. There was some discussion that I didn't get any feedback on as to I am looking at this particular project as a whole regarding the restaurants. I have some concerns with them. I don't think it would hurt the petitioner in any instance for a two-week adjournment and I think we might be able to alleviate some of the concerns. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg it was #6-93-96 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a substitute resolution in place of the pending resolution in connection with `m. Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson: The ayes have it and the motion to substitute is adopted. Now we will vote on the motion to table. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #6-94-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between 15007 Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-4-2-14 until the Regular Meeting of June 18, 1996. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Since the other issue has been tabled we will leave items 10, 11, 12 and 13 on the table. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for Lakeside Estates proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Engebretson: Presumably everything is in order? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. We have letters to that effect from both the City Engineer, who recommends approval, and the City Clerk's office indicating all 44111► the financial obligations have been taken care of. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #6-95-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Lakeside Estates Subdivision, formerly known as Parkside Estates, proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat in every respect; 2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That the City Clerk indicates that all financial assurances required for the subject Final Plat pursuant to Council Resolution No. 468-96 have been deposited with the City. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15008 Mr. Soave: I wonder if it was possible that you could waive the seven day waiting period so I could get on to the City Council agenda. �"` On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #6-96-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Final Plat for Lakeside Estates Subdivision, formerly known as Parkside Estates, proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 723rd Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on April 30, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #6-97-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 723rd Regular Meeting& Public Hearings `'+r held by the City Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Four Oaks Management requesting approval for two ground signs for property located at 8811-8899 Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Miller: This shopping center is located on the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads. It is a business center since it has more than four units in the shopping center. Because it is a business center it is allowed a business center sign, and also because there is 200 foot of frontage 15009 �..- along Newburgh and 200 foot of frontage along Joy Road, they are allowed two business center signs. They are allowed two business center signs at 40 sq. ft. each, 8 ft. high. They are proposing two at 24 sq. ft. and 7 ft. high so they are conforming signs. The building materials will match that of the shopping center and also the appearance of the signs will match the shopping center. The main body of the sign will be brick with a lime stone cap along the top of the brick wall, and each column will have a green metal roof, which is similar to the shopping center. The signage will read "Four Oaks" and that will be the only part that will be illuminated. Mr. Engebretson: We had indicated to the petitioner it was not necessary for him to be present tonight because this is a conforming sign and we had the opportunity to go over it in detail at our study meeting. I am looking for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #6-98-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Four Oaks Management for two ground signs for property located at 8811-8899 Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Lubin/Tringali Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the materials used in the construction of the signs shall match that of the shopping center; 3) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the center closes. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15010 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 725th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 4, 1996 was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION vc\,,,\\ Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: ., .L I .,S Jack ngebretso a, Chairman Jg `r.